What is the evidence for transmission of COVID-19 by children in schools? A living systematic review

  1. Wei Xu
  2. Xue Li
  3. Marshall Dozier
  4. Yazhou He
  5. Amir Kirolos
  6. Zhongyu Lang
  7. Catherine Mathews
  8. Nandi Siegfried
  9. Evropi Theodoratou

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. Version published to 10.7189/jogh.10.021104
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.11.20210658: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Literature search and eligibility criteria: We ran a systematic search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, Embase, WHO COVID-19 database, medRxiv, The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), and Do not forget the bubbles websites with entry date limits from December 2019 to 14 July 2020 (please see search strategies in Appendix S1 of the Online Supplementary Document), to identify studies that investigated SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Heterogeneity among studies was tested using Cochran’s Q statistic, the I2 index, and the tau-squared test [11].
    Cochran’s
    suggested: None

    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:
    However, the following potential limitations should be considered. First, further interpretation of age-group differences in IARs and positivity rates could not be performed because 80.0% (4/5) of included cohort studies and 50.0% (3/6) of included cross-sectional studies did not specify the ages of students and school staff. The remaining four included studies did not provide the raw data and we could not unify different age groups to run the meta-analysis. Second, cross-comparisons between IARs and positivity rates reported in different regions/countries is difficult because of differences in the sampling and testing methods used, timing of the studies in relation to the outbreak, response measures and underlying community transmission. Moreover, the differences may contribute to the heterogeneity observed in the meta-analyses results and raise methodological concerns around the validity of the meta-analysis. Due to the limited number of included studies, we could not conduct subgroup meta-analyses to further investigate the heterogeneity. As this is a living review, we anticipate that with the addition of more, well-conducted studies over time, heterogeneity may improve. Third, only two studies in the included 11 studies (18.2%) reported prevention and control measures in place in schools such as class size, physical distancing, and staggered class start and end times, making it difficult to further investigate the effectiveness of NPIs under the school environment. Forth,...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.11.20210658v1 on medRxiv