1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.30.21266756: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: (Project ID 3629) and University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (STUDY21100151)
    Sex as a biological variableStarting on September 28, 2021, patients aged 65 years or older with loss of two or more activities of daily living, pregnant patients, and/or patients with immunocompromised conditions were given priority for mAb treatment appointment scheduling.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    This was a prospective cohort study of patients within the OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monoclonal antIbodieS Through Evaluation for COVID-19 embedded learning platform (OPTIMISE-C19, NCT04790786).
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    Methods and results are reported in accordance with The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-Collected health Data (RECORD) statement (eTable 1).16
    suggested: (RECORD, RRID:SCR_009097)

    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:
    By avoiding limitations associated with intravenous administration, subcutaneous mAb treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis outpatient treatment location sites can potentially reach disadvantaged neighborhoods and low middle-income countries more readily. Our study has limitations. First, nontreated controls were matched by EUA-eligible risk factors only and we were unable to determine symptom severity (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic) in these patients. Thus, many nontreated patients may have been asymptomatic and thereby at low risk of hospitalization, which would tend to bias results against mAb treatment. Second, although adjusted for statistically, more patients in the subcutaneous group were fully vaccinated compared to the intravenous group at all sites, which may also lower risk of hospitalization and death. However, “fully vaccinated” on the referral form meant receipt of two doses of an mRNA vaccine or one dose of an adenovirus vaccine—further details on time from last dose to mAb referral, type of vaccine, or whether or not a third primary series dose had been administered to immunocompromised patients was unknown and therefore fully vaccinated cannot be interpreted as fully protected. This difference was also mitigated when the analysis was restricted to patients treated at same sites. Finally, the mean time from symptom onset to mAb treatment in our study was 6 days. While these therapies work best earliest in disease course, administering treatment faster i...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    NCT04790786RecruitingUPMC OPTIMISE-C19 Trial, a COVID-19 Study

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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?