Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.03.22274594: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The protocol was approved by the Ethical Committees for Drug Research at the Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital and, subsequently, by the local Drug Research Ethics Committees (18) and the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products.
    Consent: All patients included signed written informed consent forms.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationStudy Design: The PROTHROMCOVID study (NCT04730856) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, controlled study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, conducted in conventional hospital wards in 18 academic hospitals in Spain.
    BlindingNeither participants nor investigators were blinded as to group assignment.
    Power AnalysisThe sample size was calculated from a proportion of a 13% reduction in thrombosis in the control group and a difference of 5% compared to treatment groups.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package SAS, 9.4 (Copyright © 2016 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    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:
    Our study has certain limitations; for instance, neither investigators nor patients were blinded. The main weakness of our results, however, is not having reached the estimated sample size of 600 patients, given that the researchers chose to interrupt the study on September 2021 because the results of the interim analysis. It revealed a very low absolute number of events in each arm and the futility analysis showed that it was unlikely that significant differences could have been reached with the complete sample. These results should not be extrapolated to other more severe hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The strengths of our study include the low number of withdrawals of informed consent by patients, the very early use of tinzaparin in all three arms of the study, which may have influenced the favorable efficacy and safety outcomes and the fact that the three strategies of anticoagulation have been tested with the same LMWH. Similarly, this was a multicenter study conducted in academic and general care centers. Furthermore, the study was carried out during a phase of the pandemic were the incidence of thrombosis and mortality were lower than before; thus, the findings of our study might be more applicable to future waves of the pandemic, which are expected to be milder due to generalized immunization and better treatment options. (24). In conclusion, in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, intermediate or full-dose tinzaparin does not appear to offer any benefit over s...

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

    NCT04730856CompletedStandard vs High Prophylactic Doses or Anticoagulation in Pa…

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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?