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

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackgroundComplete 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.