MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400969429 · doi:10.1111/irv.13283

Adherence of SARS‐CoV‐2 Seroepidemiologic Studies to the ROSES‐S Reporting Guideline During the COVID‐19 Pandemic

2024· review· en· W4400969429 on OpenAlexafffund
Brianna Cheng, Emma Loeschnik, Anabel Selemon, Reza Hosseini, Jane Yuan, Xiaomeng Ma, Christian Cao, Isabel Bergeri, Lorenzo Subissi, Hannah C. Lewis, Tyler Williamson, Paul E. Ronksley, Rahul K. Arora, Mairead Whelan, Niklas Bobrovitz

Bibliographic record

VenueInfluenza and Other Respiratory Viruses · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Medical AssociationRobert Koch InstitutKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaWorld Health Organization
KeywordsGuidelineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicChecklistSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicinePublic healthVirologyEnvironmental healthOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)PsychologyDiseaseInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Complete reporting of seroepidemiologic studies is critical to their utility in evidence synthesis and public health decision making. The Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies-SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S) guideline is a checklist that aims to improve reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies. Adherence to the ROSES-S guideline has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the completeness of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic study reporting by the ROSES-S guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic, determine whether guideline publication was associated with reporting completeness, and identify study characteristics associated with reporting completeness. METHODS: A random sample from the SeroTracker living systematic review database was evaluated. For each reporting item in the guideline, the percentage of studies that were adherent was calculated, as well as median and interquartile range (IQR) adherence across all items and by item domain. Beta regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of adherence to ROSES-S. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-nine studies were analyzed. Median adherence was 48.1% (IQR 40.0%-55.2%) per study, with overall adherence ranging from 8.8% to 72.7%. The laboratory methods domain had the lowest median adherence (33.3% [IQR 25.0%-41.7%]). The discussion domain had the highest median adherence (75.0% [IQR 50.0%-100.0%]). Reporting adherence to ROSES-S before and after guideline publication did not significantly change. Publication source (p < 0.001), study risk of bias (p = 0.001), and sampling method (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Completeness of reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies was suboptimal. Publication of the ROSES-S guideline was not associated with changes in reporting practices. Authors should improve adherence to the ROSES-S guideline with support from stakeholders.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.256
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.515
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2560.515
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.971
GPT teacher head0.699
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainReporting
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfluenza and Other Respiratory VirusesSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207