Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.29.21266947: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: The study procedures, risks, and benefits were explained to all participants before obtaining written informed consent.
    IRB: The study protocol was approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board (COA no. Si 537/2021).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Blood samples were collected at baseline (pre-booster), and two weeks after booster vaccination (post-boost) to determine the level of antibody response (IgG) against receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 subunit spike protein (anti-RBD IgG) and 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50) against Delta (B1.1617.2) and Beta (B.1.351) variants.
    IgG) against receptor binding domain (RBD
    suggested: None
    S1 subunit spike protein (anti-RBD IgG
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Vero cells were seeded at 2× 105cells/well/ 3 ml and placed in 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator for 1 day.
    Vero
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The anti-RBD IgG was quantitatively measured by CMIA using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott, List No. 06S60) on the ARCHITECT i System.
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    Unpaired t-test was used to compare GMC of the IgG concentrations between groups using GraphPad Prism 9 version 9.2.0 (283) (GraphPad Software, CA, USA).
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    There are some limitations in this study. First, our study was conducted in an open label manner due to the availability of each vaccine at a different timing. While this may lead to selection bias and subjective outcomes such as AEs, the demographic characteristics of the participants in the booster groups were very similar, suggesting that this is unlikely to influence our findings. Second, our sample size is small, particularly those who received BBIBP as booster, and therefore, the data need to be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, it is unclear if similar findings will be found if the duration between the last dose of primary series and the booster dose is >12 weeks (8-12 weeks in this study). Last, the participants in this study were healthy adults therefore results may not be generalisable to other populations such as elderly or those with underlying diseases. In conclusion, we found that a booster dose of BNT162b2 given to individuals previously vaccinated with CoronaVac or ChaAdOx1 primary series is the most immunogenic. Our study findings have important implications on the choice of booster dose following CoronaVac or ChAdOx1 primary series, and are most relevant for countries that have introduced these vaccines to date. Furthermore, our study indicates that reduced dosage of BNT162b2 may be used as a booster dose instead of the standard dosage. This will aid in improving global access to COVID-19 vaccines.

    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?