Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.04.22274657: (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

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    3.2 Limitations of the available evidence: One limitation is the lack of high-quality evidence from the included studies. Confidence in the strength of evidence about adverse outcomes of COVID-19 IPC procedures was rated as ‘low’ overall. Whilst the majority of studies were deemed to be of moderate quality according to the quality appraisal checklists used, due to the nature of methods used and the standard of reporting, overall, the evidence was weak, and therefore quality was rated as ‘low’ overall. The key limitations of included studies are summarised in this report. However, due to the rapid nature of this review, quality appraisals were conducted (see Appendix 1), but no formal risk of bias was conducted. 3.3 Implications for policy and practice: Since March 2020, there have been many changes to government guidelines relating to procedures to keep the population safe from COVID-19 harm. Policies vary according to country, even within the UK. Important issues such as care home visitation policies have changed in such a way that care home staff have felt it difficult to keep up with the changes, which in itself increased the burden on those staff. The implications identified from this work are as follows: 3.4 Strengths and limitations of this Rapid Review: Strengths: Where previous rapid reviews focused on the effectiveness of IPC procedures for reducing COVID-19 transmission in care homes, this rapid review focused on adverse outcomes experienced by residents and staff 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?