Timeliness of reporting of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence results and their utility for infectious disease surveillance

Donnici, Claire; Ilincic, Natasha; Cao, Christian; Zhang, Caseng; Deveaux, Gabriel; Clifton, David A.; Buckeridge, David L.; Bobrovitz, Niklas; Arora, Rahul K

doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2022.100645

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Articles published after December 2021 may have been submitted before publication of the ROSES-S guideline and therefore subject to misclassification bias as the guideline was not available when the authors were reporting their data. However, our sensitivity analysis using a longer time delay (255 days, the third quartile of previously cited median publication lag time) 23 did not differ from the main analysis (Appendix Table 3). Longer delays to publication are possible but likely only affected a small number of studies.…”

Section: Pg 15mentioning

confidence: 58%

“…A publication time lag of 154 days was used; this was the estimated median time between the last date of participant sampling and the publication date of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies during that time period, irrespective of publication type. 23 Beta regression was used to investigate the association of study characteristics and publication of the ROSES-S guideline with total adherence scores. A univariable continuous piecewise model with two knots, one at the date of ROSES-S publication and the other 154 days later, was constructed to assess the total adherence scores over time and was plotted to conduct a visual inspection of trends.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Longer delays to publication are possible but likely only affected a small number of studies. 23 Secondly, as some reporting criterion needed to be reported together to be interpretable, we may have overestimated adherence to multi-conditional items given that we scored the item as "reported" if any criterion were satisfied. Thirdly, decisions on whether a reporting item was achieved were subjective and other investigators may evaluate adherence differently.…”

Section: Pg 15mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies to the ROSES-S reporting guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cheng

Loeschnik

Selemon

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Complete reporting of seroepidemiologic studies is paramount to inform public health decision-making. The Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies-SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S) guideline is a checklist that guides the reporting of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiological studies. Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies to the ROSES-S guideline has not yet been evaluated. Objectives: Evaluate SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic study reporting by assessing adherence to the ROSES-S reporting guideline; determine whether publication of the ROSES-S guideline was associated with reporting completeness; and identify study characteristics associated with reporting completeness. Methods: A stratified random sample of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies was evaluated for adherence to the ROSES-S guideline. Study adherence to each reporting item was categorized as "reported", "not reported", or "not applicable". Percent adherence per reporting item and the median and interquartile range (IQR) adherence were reported across all items and by item domain. Beta regression analyses examined if study characteristics were associated with changes in the overall adherence scores. Results: 199 studies were analyzed. Median adherence to reporting items was 48.1% (IQR 40.0%-55.2%) per study, with no significant changes before and after guideline publication. Article publication source (p<0.001), study risk of bias (p=0.001), and sampling method (p=0.004) were associated with adherence to the ROSES-S guideline. Conclusions: There was suboptimal reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies, which was associated with key study characteristics. Publication of the ROSES-S guideline was not associated with changes in reporting practices. Given the importance of complete reporting for the utility of seroprevalence data, authors should improve reporting.

show abstract

Section: Pg 15mentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pg 15mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies to the ROSES-S reporting guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cheng

Loeschnik

Selemon

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall percentage of adherence and percentage adherence by domain were visualized with violin plots, and the relationship between IF and adherence was visually inspected using a scatter plot. A publication time lag of 154 days was used; this was the estimated median time between the last date of participant sampling and the publication date of SARS‐CoV‐2 seroepidemiologic studies during that time period, irrespective of publication type [ 23 ]. Three time periods were used: pre‐ROSES‐S publication (March 1, 2020–June 26, 2021), 0–154 days post‐ROSES‐S publication (June 27, 2021–November 27, 2021), and 155–553 days post‐ROSES‐S publication (November 28, 2021–December 31, 2022).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cheng,

Loeschnik,

Selemon

et al. 2024

Influenza Resp Viruses

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundComplete 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.ObjectivesThis 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOne 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.ConclusionsCompleteness 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.

show abstract

“…Second, reflecting on the multitude of serosurveillance studies conducted during the pandemic, common methodological challenges were evident, notably the limitations of one-time assessments (eg, cross-sectional studies) and delays in study implementation and results sharing, 4 which hampered the use of the results of seroprevalence studies in continuing surveillance and comparison of population immunity over time and across contexts. These challenges were compounded by the low comparability between studies with varied protocols and quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from serosurveillance for SARS-CoV-2 to inform pandemic preparedness and response

Müller,

Agweyu,

Akanbi

et al. 2023

The Lancet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Timeliness of reporting of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence results and their utility for infectious disease surveillance

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies to the ROSES-S reporting guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic

Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies to the ROSES-S reporting guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic

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

Learning from serosurveillance for SARS-CoV-2 to inform pandemic preparedness and response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About