1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.07.21266027: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    Origin 2021b was used to convert graphical data to tabulated form as advised by Cochrane to avoid mistakes in the manual conversion of data [14].
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    The statistical heterogeneity was explored by calculating the I2 statistic using RevMan and by looking at the overlap of the CIs in the forest plots.
    suggested: (RevMan, RRID:SCR_003581)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.2 Limitations: A broad ethnic classification was used in this review. The Asian group included very diverse subgroups, each of which has now been shown to have different risk profiles. This approach was used to include a wide study base, as there were very few studies that had data on sub-categories, which resulted in an incomplete assessment of the risk faced by these subgroups [5]. The search had to be limited to the UK using search terms like ‘UK’, ‘England’, and so some studies might have been missed due to this strategy. As the research was carried out during the pandemic, there was a large amount of missing data reported which hindered the analysis. This review was limited to adults and so the results could not be generalized to children. The PCR test for COVID-19 has a high false-negative rate, which led to some cases being wrongly classified as non-COVID [23]. However, this was a limitation of the UK testing strategy, rather than of this review. As this review concentrated on UK based studies, the results were less generalizable to other countries as there might be differences in hospitalization policies, testing, ICU facilities, and other factors. It has been noted that many participants’ ethnicities have been put down as ‘Other’, and this may have created erroneous results for the MO group [21]. Again, this is an error of data collection by the original study researchers, rather than of this review. 4.3 Policy implications: These results have urgent implications f...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?