Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.31.22274922: (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.
    RandomizationWe listed eligible cases in random order and aimed to include the first 500 cases, who had not been hospitalized or travelled outside of Denmark during the exposure period.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisStatistical analyses and power calculation: The required sample size was calculated based on an expected bar visit frequency of 10% among controls [10].

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    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:
    Methodological strengths and limitation outlined in our previous 2020-study also apply for the current study. Among the limitations of the first study was the small sample size, therefore we went from 600 to 1000 participants to strengthen the power of the present study. Compared to our first study, we also shortened the exposure period inquired about, aiming to provide more specific estimates of associations. The use of the Danish Vaccination Registry enabled us to swiftly and objectively exclude those who had been vaccinated by the time of the study. A potential bias would arise from systematic differences in behavior between cases and controls. Some persons who recently had been in close contact with a person with known infection, would likely have been in isolation and therefore not exposed in the community. Because we frequently found controls to be more exposed than cases (resulting in OR estimates below 1), we were suspicious of such a bias being at play. To explore this further, we performed a sensitivity analysis, in which we excluded all participants who reported to have been close contacts to infected persons. However, this did not change the results. Another potential concern relates to the selection of controls. We used matched controls sampled from the general population, which was made possible because of our access to the Danish Civil Registration System. A different possibility, which we did not opt for, would have been control selection with recruitment from...

    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?