Two-month follow-up of persons with SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Zambia, September 2020: a cohort study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.15.21258964: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: These previous studies were conducted in Kabwe, Livingstone, Lusaka, Nakonde, Ndola, and Solwezi Districts in July 2020.
    IRB: This follow-on study was approved by the Zambia National Health Research Authority and the University of Zambia Biomedical Research Ethics Committee.
    Consent: If the participant provided consent, project staff conducted a 15-20 minute interview using a structured questionnaire.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Responses were recorded on tablets and entered into a REDCap database maintained by the Zambia Ministry of Health.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)
    Data were then imported into STATA version 14.2 for analysis (22).
    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:
    This study was subject to several limitations. Firstly, this was a convenience sample of the general population, outpatients, and health care workers who tested positive and therefore may not be representative of all persons with COVID-19 in Zambia. Furthermore, the response rate was low and persons with persistent symptoms might have had greater (or less) participation than other participants. The data were collected approximately two months following the participants’ positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, hence responses were subject to recall bias. The symptoms and return to usual health were self-reported and may not accurately represent a comparable picture of COVID-19 persistent symptoms. It is also possible that self-reported symptoms were caused by other conditions. Pre-existing comorbid conditions may have been mis-reported. This study adds to a growing body of literature on long term clinical course of COVID-19 in non-hospitalized persons. It is becoming clear that COVID-19 symptoms can persist for weeks to months. Given the extent of the outbreak in Africa, the COVID-19 pandemic could create health problems for years to come. Governments need to proactively establish care models for post-acute COVID-19 care in Africa. In high tuberculosis burden countries like Zambia, persons with chronic cough should be assessed for tuberculosis infection. Zambia is implementing ‘post-acute COVID-19 clinics’ to care for patients with prolonged symptoms of COVID-19 to better address the...

    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.
    • 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.