Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jul;18(7):e13283.
doi: 10.1111/irv.13283.

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

Brianna Cheng  1 , Emma Loeschnik  2 , Anabel Selemon  3 , Reza Hosseini  3 , Jane Yuan  2 , Harriet Ware  3 , Xiaomeng Ma  4 , Christian Cao  1 , Isabel Bergeri  5 , Lorenzo Subissi  5 , Hannah C Lewis  5 , Tyler Williamson  3   6 , Paul Ronksley  6 , Rahul K Arora  3   7 , Mairead Whelan  3 , Niklas Bobrovitz  3   8
Affiliations
Review

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

Brianna Cheng et al. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2024 Jul.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: SARS‐CoV‐2; guideline adherence; research design; seroepidemiologic studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Adherence to ROSES‐S over time. Each dot represents a study. Dashed lines are the 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles of the predicted beta distribution. This piecewise model was not statistically significant compared to non‐segmented [X2 (2) = 2.68, p = 0.262] and null [X2 (3) = 2.85, p = 0.415] models in likelihood ratio tests.
FIGURE A1
FIGURE A1
PRISMA flow diagram of inclusion.
FIGURE A2
FIGURE A2
Adherence to ROSES‐S (%) overall and per domain. For all violin plots, n = 199, except for Domain 6, for which n = 197.
FIGURE A3
FIGURE A3
Association between the adherence score of a study and its publisher's journal impact factor. This plot only shows the included studies published in a peer‐reviewed journal with an impact factor (N = 133). Each dot represents a study. Dashed lines are the 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles of the predicted beta distribution.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jiang J. C. and Zhang Y., “Serological Antibody Testing in the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Their Molecular Basis and Applications,” Biochemical Society Transactions 48, no. 6 (2020): 2851–2863, 10.1042/BST20200744. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sikkema R. S., Freidl G. S., de Bruin E., and Koopmans M., “Weighing Serological Evidence of Human Exposure to Animal Influenza Viruses − a Literature Review,” Eurosurveillance 21 (2016): 44, 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.44.30388. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bobrovitz N., Arora R. K., Yan T., et al., “Lessons From a Rapid Systematic Review of Early SARS‐CoV‐2 Serosurveys,” medRxiv 2020:2020.05.10.20097451, 10.1101/2020.05.10.20097451. - DOI
    1. Cuschieri S., “The STROBE Guidelines,” Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 13, no. 5 (2019): 31–34, 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Koletsi D., Fleming P., Behrents R., Lynch C., and Pandis N., “The Use of Tailored Subheadings Was Successful in Enhancing Compliance With CONSORT in a Dental Journal,” Journal of Dentistry 67 (2017): 66–71, 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.009. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources