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

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundComplete reporting of seroepidemiologic studies (e.g. sampling and measurement methods, immunoassay characteristics) are critical to their interpretation, comparison, and utility in evidence synthesis. The Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies—SARS_JCoV_J2 (ROSES-S) guideline is a reporting checklist that aims to improve the quality and transparency of reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiological studies. While the synthesis of seroepidemiologic studies played a crucial role in public health decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic, adherence of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies to the ROSES-S guideline has not yet been evaluated.ObjectivesTo evaluate the completeness of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic study reporting over the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic by assessing adherence to the ROSES-S reporting guideline, determine whether publication of the ROSES-S guideline was associated with changes in reporting completeness, and identify study characteristics associated with reporting completeness.MethodsA stratified random sample of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies from the SeroTracker living systematic review database was evaluated for adherence to the ROSES-S guideline. We categorized study adherence to each reporting item in the guideline as “reported”, “not reported”, or “not applicable”. For each reporting item we calculated the percentage of studies that were adherent. We also calculated the median and interquartile range (IQR) adherence across all items and by item domain. Piecewise and multivariable beta regression analyses were used to determine whether publication date of the ROSES-S guideline was associated with changes in the overall adherence scores and to identify study characteristics associated with overall adherence scores.Results199 studies were included and analyzed. The median adherence to reporting items was 48.1% (IQR 40.0%–55.2%) per study. Adherence to reporting items ranged from 8.8% to 72.7% per study. The laboratory methods domain (e.g. description of testing algorithm) had the lowest median adherence (33.3% [IQR 25.0%–41.7%%]), while the discussion domain had the highest median adherence (75.0% [IQR 50.0%–100.0%])). There were no significant changes in reporting adherence to ROSES-S 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 significantly associated with adherence to the ROSES-S guideline.ConclusionsThe completeness of reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies was suboptimal, especially in laboratory methods, and was associated with key study characteristics. Publication of the ROSES-S guideline was not associated with changes in reporting practices. Given that reporting is necessary to improve the standardization and utility of seroprevalence data in evidence synthesis, authors should improve adherence to the ROSES-S guideline with support from stakeholders.