Risk Stratification as a Tool to Rationalize Quarantine of Health Care Workers Exposed to COVID-19 Cases: Evidence From a Tertiary Health Care Center in India

  1. Ravneet Kaur
  2. Shashi Kant
  3. Mohan Bairwa
  4. Arvind Kumar
  5. Shivram Dhakad
  6. Vignesh Dwarakanathan
  7. Aftab Ahmad
  8. Pooja Pandey
  9. Arti Kapil
  10. Rakesh Lodha
  11. Naveet Wig

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.31.20166264: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical Considerations: The Institute Ethics Committee approved the study.
    Consent: Informed verbal consent was taken on the phone from the participants.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Contract tracing process and development of risk assessment tool: Operational definitions: Statistical Analysis: Data were entered and managed in MS Excel 2016, and statistical analysis was carried out using STATA 12.0 (
    MS Excel
    suggested: None
    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:
    Limitations: The risk stratification was based on the history provided by the participant. Recall and social desirability bias, therefore, could not be ruled out. Deliberate misinformation was also a possibility, particularly where participants feared that if quarantined, they could lose wages for that period. Sanitation staff and hospital attendants that were provided by an external agency were more likely to fall into this category.

    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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1177/1010539520977310
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.31.20166264v1 on medRxiv