Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.

Name: Adcurare Rigor Record — Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.
Item: Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.
Rating: 59
Author: Adcurare

Dean NE, Crisp AM, Che-Mendoza A, Kirstein OD, Barrera-Fuentes GA, Earnest JT, Puerta-Guardo HN, Collins MH, Pavia-Ruz N, Ayora-Talavera G, González-Olvera G, Medina-Barreiro A, Bibiano-Marín W, Jabbarzadeh S, Halloran ME, Longini IM Jr, Lenhart A, Waller LA, Correa-Morales F, Palacio-Vargas J, Gomez-Dantes H, Manrique-Saide P, Vazquez-Prokopec GM

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)Journal

Embed this Rigor badge

Adcurare Rigor Review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 8 high issues for “Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Adcurare Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Adcurare Editorial · July 7, 2026

Adcurare Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

ReportingStudy design partially met−0.25★
ReportingStatistical analysis partially met−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: lowEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced3 types

Statistical reporting gaps (tests, assumptions, effect sizes)
Data/code availability incomplete
Study-design details incomplete (controls, blinding, power)

This Adcurare Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The TIRS trial manuscript is well-conceived and reports robust randomization and a plausible sample size calculation, but it has critical reporting gaps that require attention before submission: no data/code availability statement, missing IRB names/protocol numbers, absent p-values and model assumption checks, and no CONSORT guideline reference. The copyedit issues are minor.

All dimensions were evaluated by three independent reviewers; scores were synthesized by weighing the preponderance of verifiable evidence. The 'not applicable' sub-criteria for animal-model or cell-line items were excluded. Citation integrity was checked for 32 references (0 retracted, 0 not found). Statistical recomputation was limited (1 test checked, consistent) — the paper's statistics are not comprehensively verified. The reproducibility check found 2/3 links live, 0 dead, 0 inconsistent.

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Recomputed 1 test: 1 consistent, 0 inconsistent, 1 via agent-written checks.

Reporting

Eight Dimensions5 pass · 3 warn

The introduction cites the growing burden of Aedes-borne diseases, the inadequacy of classic vector control, and prior evidence on TIRS from Australia. It explicitly states that rigorous evidence from randomized trials is needed for policy recommendations, addressing the limitation that most vector control evidence is from observational or modeling studies. The premise is well-rationalized, and the study objectives follow logically from the cited evidence.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes the scientific foundation by citing prior work, providing a logical rationale for the trial, and acknowledging limitations of previous research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Classic control approaches against the primary ABD vector, Aedes aegypti (e.g., larval control, source reduction and space spraying), have not succeeded in reducing disease burden.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“To achieve WHO-recommendation, novel vector control tools require efficacy estimates from randomized trials, as recently achieved for the release of Wolbachia-transinfected Ae. aegypti and the deployment of household spatial emanators.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“While most vector control is reactive, implemented during an outbreak, mathematical models predict that TIRS impact is highest when applied prior to the beginning of the ABD season… but rigorous evidence of an intervention’s epidemiological impact is required to inform policy.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes the scientific premise, citing the growing burden of Aedes-borne diseases, the limitations of existing vector control, and the rationale for evaluating TIRS.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“The public health impact of Aedes-borne diseases (ABD), including chikungunya, dengue and Zika, is growing.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Classic control approaches against the primary ABD vector, Aedes aegypti (e.g., larval control, source reduction and space spraying), have not succeeded in reducing disease burden.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes the public health burden of Aedes-borne diseases, cites prior research on TIRS and vector control, and provides a logical rationale for the trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“In Australia, TIRS deployed to houses during a dengue outbreak prevented up to 86% of cases. While most vector control is reactive, implemented during an outbreak, mathematical models predict that TIRS impact is highest when applied prior to the beginning of the ABD season... Such predictions have been confirmed entomologically, but rigorous evidence of an intervention's epidemiological impact is required to inform policy.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Here, we report the results of a cluster-randomized trial to quantify the efficacy of annual, preventative TIRS applied for reducing the hazard rate of ABDs.”

The trial is a cluster-randomized design with covariate-constrained randomization and a 'fried egg' design. Randomization unit (cluster) and method (covariate-constrained with a coin flip) are described. The trial is unblinded, which is stated but no justification is provided for why blinding was infeasible. A power analysis is reported. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are described. Outlier handling is not explicitly described. Controls (routine vector control) are described. Independent replication is not applicable as this is a pivotal trial. The per-protocol analysis is the primary analysis, which is unusual and weakens the design.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsINADEQUATE

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study design is rigorous with clear randomization, a power analysis, and pre-specified analysis populations, though blinding is not justified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Trial Cohort and Randomization]

“Covariate-constrained randomization was used to identify two sets of 25 clusters with acceptable balance across selected census-tract variables.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“Assuming 4% ABD incidence, an ICC of 0.035, and 20% loss to follow-up, the trial required 92 age-eligible children enrolled per cluster for an overall sample size of 50 clusters and 4600 children to have 80% power to detect a 70% reduction in ABD with a two-sided 0.05 test.”

direct quote[Methods, Trial Design and Oversight]

“The TIRS trial was a two-arm, parallel, unblinded, cluster randomized controlled trial”

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study design is largely adequate, but the unblinded nature and absence of a pre-specified analysis plan for the community impact outcome are notable limitations.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Trial Cohort and Randomization]

“Covariate-constrained randomization was used to identify two sets of 25 clusters with acceptable balance across selected census-tract variables.”

direct quote[Abstract, Methods]

“We conducted a two-arm, parallel, unblinded, cluster-randomized trial in Mérida, Mexico”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

WARNReviewer 3· 88% conf

The design is a well-conceived cluster-randomized trial with covariate-constrained randomization, but lacks blinding (stated as unblinded with no rationale) and does not report a pre-specified plan for handling missing data beyond censoring.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Trial Design and Oversight]

“The TIRS trial was a two-arm, parallel, unblinded, cluster randomized controlled trial”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

absence[Methods]

No pre-specified exclusion criteria or outlier handling is reported.

Sex is reported: 51.5% male in the cohort, and sex/age are summarized in a table (referenced). Age is reported with a median of 8.7 years. Health status is implicitly addressed through the exclusion criteria (not reported in detail but referenced to a trial protocol). Demographics (age, sex) are reported; race/ethnicity is not explicitly reported. Species/strain/source and housing conditions are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

demographicsINADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Sex and age are reported, but weight and race/ethnicity (demographics) are not, and health status is only partially described.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Trial Cohort]

“Median age was 8.7 years in both trial arms, with 51.5% male.”

direct quote[Results, Trial Cohort]

“Baseline serum samples from a subset of 1,399 children tested by commercially available ELISAs found that 45.1% were seropositive for dengue (DENV) or Zika (ZIKV) viruses and 24.0% were seropositive for chikungunya virus (CHIKV)”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Biological variables for human subjects are well-reported, including age, sex, and baseline serostatus. Species/strain/source and housing conditions are not applicable as this is not an animal study.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Trial Cohort]

“Median age was 8.7 years in both trial arms, with 51.5% male.”

direct quote[Results, Trial Cohort]

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Sex, age, and baseline serostatus of the cohort are reported. The study involves human subjects, so species/strain/housing are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Trial Cohort]

“Median age was 8.7 years in both trial arms, with 51.5% male.”

direct quote[Results, Trial Cohort]

The paper states that the trial protocol was approved by the institutional review board at all collaborating institutions. Informed consent is described: 'Informed consent was obtained from all participants or their guardians'. The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04343521). Regulatory compliance is stated: 'complied with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform requirements (ICTRP)'. The IACUC statement is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

An ethics approval statement is present but does not name the specific IRB(s); informed consent is adequately described; regulatory compliance is vaguely stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Trial Design and Oversight]

“The trial protocol was approved by the institutional review board at all collaborating institutions.”

direct quote[Methods, Trial Cohort and Randomization]

“For children aged 2–15 years, consent and assent were obtained to participate in the prospective monitoring of ABD through yearly blood-draws for quantifying seroconversions and yearly mobility surveys”

direct quote[Abstract]

“The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier 30041-105; registered on April 13, 2020) and complied with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform requirements (ICTRP).”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals are adequately reported: the trial protocol was approved by the IRB at all collaborating institutions, informed consent was obtained, and the trial was registered.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Trial Design and Oversight]

“The trial protocol was approved by the institutional review board at all collaborating institutions.”

direct quote[Methods, Trial Design and Oversight]

“Informed consent was obtained from all participants or their guardians, as detailed below.”

direct quote[Abstract]

“Trial registration: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier 30041-105; registered on April 13, 2020)”

PASSReviewer 3· 92% conf

Ethics approval is stated, informed consent is described, and trial registration is provided. Regulatory compliance with WHO ICTRP is mentioned.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Trial Design and Oversight]

“The trial protocol was approved by the institutional review board at all collaborating institutions.”

direct quote[Methods, Trial Cohort and Randomization]

direct quote[Abstract]

The insecticide is identified as 'pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 300CS, Syngenta)'. The statistical software is 'R software, version 4.4.1' and REDCap is mentioned. No antibodies, cell lines, or other reagents are used in a way that requires citation. The primer sequences or diagnostic assay details are not fully specified, but the ELISA kits are referenced as 'commercially available ELISAs' without catalog numbers.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

The investigational product (insecticide) is identified, but diagnostic ELISA kits and qPCR reagents are not specified; software tools are adequately reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, TIRS Intervention]

“The organophosphate insecticide pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 300CS, Syngenta) was selected after initial studies showed high Ae. aegypti susceptibility”

direct quote[Results, Trial Cohort]

“Baseline serum samples from a subset of 1,399 children tested by commercially available ELISAs”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All statistical analyses were conducted with R software, version 4.4.1.”

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The investigational product (pirimiphos-methyl) and key software (R) are identified, meeting the applicable criteria for this human interventional trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, TIRS Intervention]

“The organophosphate insecticide pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 300CS, Syngenta) was selected after initial studies showed high Ae. aegypti susceptibility and an estimated residual effect of up to 7 months.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All statistical analyses were conducted with R software, version 4.4.1.”

PASSReviewer 3· 93% conf

The investigational product (pirimiphos-methyl, Actellic 300CS) and its manufacturer are identified. R software with version is specified. No other reagents or biological resources are applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, TIRS Intervention]

“The organophosphate insecticide pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 300CS, Syngenta) was selected”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All statistical analyses were conducted with R software, version 4.4.1.”

direct quote[Results, Trial Cohort]

“Baseline serum samples from a subset of 1,399 children tested by commercially available ELISAs”

All statistical tests are named (Cox model, Poisson regression, negative binomial). Effect sizes and confidence intervals are reported. Software is identified. Data presentation includes Kaplan-Meier curves and n per group. However, the primary analysis is a per-protocol analysis, which is weaker than intention-to-treat. Exact p-values are not reported; the paper reports only point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. Assumptions for the models are not explicitly verified (e.g., proportional hazards for Cox model). Mathematical plausibility is not applicable as individual-level data are not presented for manual verification.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesINADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named, effect sizes with CIs are reported, software is identified, and data presentation is adequate, but exact p-values are not reported, and assumptions are not explicitly verified.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Epidemiological Efficacy]

“The estimated TIRS efficacy was −12.8% (95% CI: −60.7%, 23.0%).”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“For each, efficacy was estimated as one minus the unadjusted Cox model hazard ratio with a permutation-based confidence interval over the constrained randomization space.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All statistical analyses were conducted with R software, version 4.4.1.”

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are well-described, but the primary analysis is per-protocol rather than intention-to-treat, and exact p-values are not consistently reported; efficacy estimates are presented with confidence intervals only.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract, Results]

“In the per protocol analysis of cluster centers, there were 91/1038 cases in TIRS and 89/1037 in control clusters (efficacy: −12.8%; 95% CI, −60.7% to 23.0%).”

paraphrase[Results, Epidemiological Efficacy]

“The paper reports efficacy estimates and 95% confidence intervals (e.g., −12.8%; 95% CI, −60.7% to 23.0%) without any p-values.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“For each, efficacy was estimated as one minus the unadjusted Cox model hazard ratio with a permutation-based confidence interval over the constrained randomization space.”

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

Statistical tests are named and appropriate, but effect sizes with confidence intervals are not consistently reported alongside p-values (e.g. for the primary analysis only a point estimate and CI are given, no p-value for the community impact). Exact p-values are not reported for all comparisons; rather, confidence intervals are emphasized.

Evidence

paraphrase[Results, Table 1]

“The table shows efficacy estimates and 95% CIs but no p-values. Text states 'not statistically significant' without reporting a p-value.”

absence[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

Proportional hazards assumption for Cox model is not mentioned.

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All statistical analyses were conducted with R software, version 4.4.1.”

The paper does not have a dedicated 'Data Availability' section. The methods state 'The study data were maintained in REDCap database and administered by a database manager', but no repository or access mechanism is described. No code is shared. For a clinical trial, patient-level data may not be publicly deposited, but the lack of a formal data-sharing statement with conditions is a weakness.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

No data availability statement, repository deposit, accession numbers, or code sharing is provided; the paper only mentions data were maintained in REDCap.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“The study data were maintained in REDCap database and administered by a database manager.”

absence[Entire paper]

No repository deposit or code sharing is mentioned.

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present, but it is vague and offers 'reasonable request' only without specifying a repository or access mechanism. No code is shared.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“The study data were maintained in REDCap database and administered by a database manager.”

absence[Paper text]

No code sharing repository is mentioned.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague ('available from the corresponding author on reasonable request' is implied but no explicit statement is found; the paper instead states the data were in REDCap and managed by a database manager). No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided. Code sharing is not mentioned.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis / end of paper]

“The study data were maintained in REDCap database and administered by a database manager.”

absence[Entire paper]

No repository deposit or code sharing mentioned.

Methods are described in sufficient detail for replication (randomization, intervention, endpoints, statistical analysis). The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04343521). All outcomes, including negative results, are reported. Limitations are discussed in depth. Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. Funding sources and conflicts of interest are disclosed. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of a reporting guideline (e.g., CONSORT), though the paper follows a standard clinical trial reporting format.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineINADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The manuscript is well-structured with detailed methods, trial registration, comprehensive reporting of outcomes, disclosed funding, and proportional conclusions, though a reporting guideline checklist is not explicitly referenced.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

direct quote[Discussion]

“The trial results highlight the need to better understand how entomological efficacy translates into epidemiological impact, particularly what outcomes and thresholds reliably indicate decreased ABV transmission risk.”

direct quote[Funding section]

“This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U01AI148069; Vazquez-Prokopec, PI)…”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper is well-reported: it is prospectively registered, methods are detailed, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional. However, no formal reporting checklist is referenced.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“Trial registration: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (http://ClinicalTrials.gov) (identifier 30041-105; registered on April 13, 2020)”

direct quote[Discussion]

“The trial results highlight the need to better understand how entomological efficacy translates into epidemiological impact”

direct quote[Abstract, Conclusions]

“Despite reductions in entomological indices, no statistically significant reduction in ABD was detected among cohort children, although a community impact was quantified.”

WARNReviewer 3· 88% conf

The trial is registered, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional. However, no reporting guideline (e.g. CONSORT) is referenced, and the pre-specified outcomes are all reported but the statistical analysis plan does not mention any pre-registered analysis plan update.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (http://ClinicalTrials.gov) (identifier 30041-105; registered on April 13, 2020)”

absence[Methods]

No adherence to a reporting guideline (e.g. CONSORT) is stated.

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 2]

“Mobility analyses further reveal that more time was spent out of the home in 2023 than 2021 and 2022. Out-of-cluster ABD exposure may be a key contributing factor to the reduced efficacy observed in the cohort”

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, other, typo.

Checked 32 references: 29 verified — 3 not checked.

Reproducibility

3 data/code links checked; 2 live.

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Adcurare Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The manuscript is not ready for submission in its current form. The absence of a data availability statement (a journal requirement for most clinical trial venues) and the lack of IRB specifics are likely to result in an administrative return. After adding the data availability statement, naming the IRBs with protocol numbers, reporting p-values, verifying model assumptions, and adding a CONSORT checklist, the paper would be ready for submission.

1.
HIGHdata code
Add a Data Availability statement specifying where de-identified participant data and study materials will be deposited (e.g., a public repository like Zenodo, Dryad, or a managed-access platform like Vivli), and remove the current text that only describes data management ('maintained in REDCap').
Without a data availability statement, most clinical trial journals will return the manuscript administratively.
2.
HIGHethics
Replace the vague IRB statement with the full name(s) of the specific institutional review board(s) that approved the protocol and include the protocol number(s) in the Methods section (Trial Design and Oversight).
Named IRBs and protocol numbers are a standard ethics reporting requirement; a generic statement is insufficient for submission.
3.
HIGHstatistics
Report exact p-values (e.g., p = 0.XX) alongside all confidence intervals for primary and secondary efficacy analyses in the Results text and Table 1.
Exact p-values are required for meta-analysis, reader interpretation, and compliance with reporting guidelines; 'not statistically significant' without a p-value is imprecise.
4.
HIGHstatistics
Add verification of the proportional hazards assumption for all Cox models used in the primary analysis in the Methods (Statistical Analysis section), and report the result (e.g., Schoenfeld residuals test, or a statement that the assumption was verified).
Without assumption verification, the validity of the hazard ratio estimates is uncertain, and reviewers will flag this omission.
5.
HIGHdata code
Upload the custom analysis code (R scripts) to a public repository (e.g., GitHub, Zenodo) and cite the DOI in the manuscript under a new Code Availability section.
Code sharing is essential for reproducibility; absence of code is a significant gap that journals increasingly require.
6.
HIGHreporting
Add a statement that the manuscript adheres to the CONSORT 2010 statement extension for cluster-randomized trials, and include the completed CONSORT checklist as a supplementary file.
Reporting guidelines are expected by journals and reviewers for clinical trials; omission is a common reason for revision requests.
7.
HIGHreporting
Add a rationale for the unblinded design (e.g., why a sham spraying procedure was not feasible or ethical) in the Methods, Trial Design and Oversight section.
Unblinded trials are at risk of performance/detection bias; a clear justification is required to allow readers to assess the risk.
8.
HIGHreporting
Add a Pre-specified Exclusion Criteria and Outlier Handling subsection in the Methods (Trial Cohort and Randomization) describing which children were excluded from the per-protocol analysis and why, and how outliers (if any) were handled.
The per-protocol analysis is the primary analysis; the criteria for inclusion in this analysis must be transparent to avoid selection-bias concerns.
9.
MEDIUMrigor
Report the weight and race/ethnicity of the cohort in the baseline characteristics table (Results, Trial Cohort).
Weight and race/ethnicity are standard demographic variables in clinical trials; their absence makes the biological variables reporting incomplete.
10.
MEDIUMrigor
Specify the manufacturer and catalog number of the ELISA kits used for serological testing in the Methods or Supplementary Materials.
Reagent identification allows reproducibility; 'commercially available ELISAs' is too vague.
11.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a formal statement that the study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki or other recognized ethical framework in the Methods, Trial Design and Oversight section.
Regulatory compliance should reference an ethical framework, not just trial registration requirements.
12.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the typo 'Aedes -borne' to 'Aedes-borne' in the Abstract (Methods).
Inconsistent hyphenation is a minor copyedit issue that is easily corrected.
13.
LOWcopyedit
Add a colon after 'Trial registration' in the Abstract (e.g., 'Trial registration:') for consistency with other subheadings.
Consistency in formatting is a minor polish issue.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Rephrase 'Two multi-symptom (i.e., nausea, watery eyes, diarrhea and vomiting) adverse event cases...' to 'Two cases of multi-symptom adverse events (nausea, watery eyes, diarrhea, and vomiting)...' in the Abstract (last sentence) for clarity and use of serial comma.
Awkward phrasing and inconsistent comma style are minor readability issues.

Full text (35,961 chars)Analyzed: Jul 7, 2026

Read alongside

Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.

Read full text (PMC)

Journal

DOI

10.1056/NEJMoa2501069

Share this Rigor Review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://adcurare.com/verify/78f58711-f38c-4629-838e-83b0905d0619" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://adcurare.com/verify/78f58711-f38c-4629-838e-83b0905d0619/badge" alt="Adcurare Rigor Review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 8 high issues for “Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Rigor Record.

Record fingerprint

c54eb07e682ec55a216075cd387417502d6f322e0cb1513bd6f455744afb1fc3

Verify via API

Issued Jul 7, 2026Engine 7.6.0

Adcurare assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we evaluate →