Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

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

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.
Item: Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.
Rating: 86
Author: Alpha1

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)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 2.25★ (Weak), 0 critical, 6 high issues for “Randomized Trial of Targeted Indoor Spraying to Prevent Aedes-Borne Diseases.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 10, 2026

Read alongside

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

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1056/NEJMoa2501069

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/38231db9-f459-4276-b5d8-86b7bc304290" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/38231db9-f459-4276-b5d8-86b7bc304290/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 2.25★ (Weak), 0 critical, 6 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 Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

2ccd3e12fc678dc4e840f5df35991ec1178ec633dbab7d6458770c80001fa6f4

Verify via API

Issued Aug 10, 2026Engine 7.29.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

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

Paper source

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

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 10, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

2.25 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×4−2★
ReportingData & code availability not met−0.5★
ReportingEthical approvals partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Data and code not shared
highDisclosurereviewer-assessedFull detail
No data-availability statement is present, and no accession numbers or code repository are provided, despite these being required for a clinical trial.
“Details of the study design are available in the trial protocol, posted as a with this article at nejm.org”
MethodsFind in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 102OverreachOverstated conclusions · partly checked 03AuthenticityNone found 204DisclosureReporting gaps 05AvailabilityNone found 106CopyeditCopyediting

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen 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 paper is a well-conducted cluster-RCT with strong design, transparent reporting of null results, and appropriate statistical methods. Its most significant rigor gaps are the absence of a data-availability statement and a generic IRB approval statement lacking specific body names and protocol numbers. Several internal inconsistencies in registration identifiers and case counts, though minor, should be corrected via an erratum.

Two independent rigor evaluations (same model, independently sampled) were synthesized; the copyedit pass and verification components were also incorporated. The statistics verification covered only 3 reported tests; remaining analyses are unverified. The study was assessed as published; no re-analysis was performed.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst low

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

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

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

2 findings · worst high

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data and code not sharedAssessed
Ethics/consent reporting incompleteAssessed

Eight Dimensions6 pass · 1 warn · 1 fail

Prior work is cited extensively (burden data, failures of classic vector control, Australian observational TIRS evidence, mathematical models predicting TIRS timing), and the rationale for a randomized efficacy trial is explicit. Limitations of prior work (observational confounding, reactive vs. preventive deployment) are acknowledged in the discussion, where the authors explicitly note the trial did not replicate the Australian observational estimate.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper clearly establishes the public-health burden of Aedes-borne disease, the failure of classic control tools, and the rationale for randomized evaluation of TIRS.

Evidence

“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.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“rigorous evidence of an intervention’s epidemiological impact is required to inform policy.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“Yet the trial did not replicate the high estimated effectiveness from an observational analysis in Australia.”

Discussion ¶2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific foundation: prior evidence on TIRS and vector control is cited with strengths and acknowledged gaps, and the rationale linking entomological reduction to epidemiological impact justifies the trial.

Evidence

“In Australia, TIRS deployed to houses during a dengue outbreak prevented up to 86% of cases.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“rigorous evidence of an intervention's epidemiological impact is required to inform policy.”

“Yet the trial did not replicate the high estimated effectiveness from an observational analysis in Australia.”

Discussion ¶1Find in source

Randomization method and unit (cluster of 5x5 city blocks) are stated ('Covariate-constrained randomization' plus 'A fair coin flip was performed to determine cluster allocation'). Blinding is addressed by stating the trial was unblinded, though a rationale is not explicitly given. A full a priori power calculation is provided (4% incidence, ICC 0.035, 20% loss, 80% power for 70% reduction). Inclusion criteria (children aged 2-15 in cluster households) and the analysis population (ITT and per-protocol, with censoring rules) are defined. Biological-vs-technical replication, wet-lab controls, and independent replication are not applicable to this human cluster trial.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingINADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Core design elements of this cluster-randomized trial are reported: covariate-constrained randomization with a coin-flip allocation, a power calculation, ITT and per-protocol analyses, and a defined active-surveillance period.

Evidence

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

MethodsFind in source

“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.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

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

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

A well-designed cluster-RCT with covariate-constrained randomization, a stated coin-flip allocation, pre-specified power calculation, and defined ITT/PP analysis populations; the unblinded design is explicitly declared.

Evidence

paraphrase[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.”

“A fair coin flip was performed to determine cluster allocation to the TIRS or control arm.”

MethodsFind in source

“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.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sex is reported (51.5% male) and age is reported (median 8.7 years in both arms), with baseline serostatus for DENV/ZIKV and CHIKV. Demographics are partially covered - age and sex are given but race/ethnicity and comorbidity detail are not. Sex justification is not applicable because both sexes were enrolled. Species/strain/housing are not applicable to a human trial.

Sub-criteria

demographicsINADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

For this human cohort, sex and age are reported and balanced across arms; race/ethnicity and comorbidity detail are limited.

Evidence

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

ResultsFind in source

“45.1% were seropositive for dengue (DENV) or Zika (ZIKV) viruses and 24.0% were seropositive for chikungunya virus (CHIKV)”

ResultsFind in source

absence[Results, Trial Cohort]

Race/ethnicity and comorbidity detail not reported

PASSReviewer 2· 75% conf

Sex and age are well reported for a pediatric cohort, with serostatus (health) also given; race/ethnicity and comorbidity details are not reported, so demographics is only partially adequate.

Evidence

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

ResultsFind in source

“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)”

ResultsFind in source

Informed consent and assent are described for children and guardians, and an independent external monitor reviewed consents and adverse events. However, the ethics statement reads 'The trial protocol was approved by the institutional review board at all collaborating institutions' - it does not name the specific institutions or provide protocol numbers, so it is inadequate per the named-body standard. Regulatory compliance is partly addressed via WHO ICTRP registration compliance.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementINADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Informed consent is clearly described, but the IRB approval statement is generic and does not name the approving bodies or protocol numbers as required.

Evidence

“Informed consent was obtained from all participants or their guardians”

MethodsFind in source

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

MethodsFind in source

“complied with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform requirements (ICTRP)”

AbstractFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Ethics approval, informed consent/assent, and WHO ICTRP regulatory compliance are all stated; the approving IRB is not individually named but approval by 'the institutional review board at all collaborating institutions' is explicit.

Evidence

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

MethodsFind in source

“For children aged 2–15 years, consent and assent were obtained to participate in the prospective monitoring of ABD”

MethodsFind in source

“complied with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform requirements (ICTRP)”

AbstractFind in source

This is a vector-control intervention trial; the investigational product is the insecticide, which is adequately identified with manufacturer, formulation, and application details. Analytical software (R version 4.4.1) and the REDCap database are identified. Antibodies, cell lines, mycoplasma testing, and research organisms are not applicable; the baseline serology used 'commercially available ELISAs' but these are not detailed as a scored reagent.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The investigational product (pirimiphos-methyl, Actellic 300CS, Syngenta) is named with formulation and dose, and the statistical software and version are identified.

Evidence

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

MethodsFind in source

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

The investigational product (pirimiphos-methyl, Actellic 300CS, Syngenta) is identified with manufacturer and formulation, and analysis software (R 4.4.1, REDCap) is named; bench-resource criteria are not applicable to this field trial.

Evidence

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

MethodsFind in source

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

Tests are named (Cox proportional hazards with permutation-based CI, Poisson regression, negative binomial with random effect, Kaplan-Meier). Efficacy is reported throughout as point estimates with 95% CIs without reliance on threshold p-values, so exact_p_values is not applicable and effect_sizes_ci is fully satisfied. Assumptions are handled by design (clustered Cox/Poisson/negative binomial models). Data presentation follows the clinical idiom (Kaplan-Meier curves with confidence bands, per-group n, flow diagram). Mathematical plausibility is not applicable for model-derived estimates from a large trial.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesN/A

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Analyses are reported by estimation with 95% confidence intervals; all named tests are standard methods appropriate to the clustered design, and software is identified.

Evidence

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

ResultsFind in source

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Statistical methods are fully specified (Cox, Poisson, negative binomial models with permutation-based CIs), reporting is estimation-based with 95% CIs throughout, and all reported counts reconcile; exact p-values are not applicable because no hypothesis-test p-values are reported.

Evidence

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

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

ResultsFind in source

“A total of 422 ABD cases were confirmed in the cohort (213 in TIRS, 209 in control)”

ResultsFind in source

The paper names a supplementary protocol posted at NEJM.org but provides no data-availability statement, no data-access mechanism, and no code repository for the bespoke R analyses. Repository deposit and accession numbers are not applicable for identifiable patient-level data, but the required data-availability statement is absent, so no applicable criterion is adequate.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositN/A

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 75% conf

No data-availability statement is present, and no accession numbers or code repository are provided, despite these being required for a clinical trial.

Evidence

absence[Throughout manuscript]

No data availability statement found

“Details of the study design are available in the trial protocol, posted as a with this article at nejm.org”

MethodsFind in source

absence[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

No code repository provided despite bespoke R analyses

FAILReviewer 2· 70% conf

No data availability statement is present, and no analysis code is shared; for a clinical trial a data-sharing statement is required, so no applicable criterion is adequate.

Evidence

“Details of the study design are available in the trial protocol, posted as a with this article at nejm.org”

MethodsFind in source

absence[Whole paper]

No data availability statement is present in the paper.

Trial registration is given (NCT04343521) with a registration date. Methods are thorough (spraying coverage, bioassays, endpoint definitions, surveillance). Limitations are discussed in depth (mobility, DENV3 outbreak, out-of-cluster exposure, reasons for null primary). Conclusions are appropriately cautious. Funding sources and a disclosure statement are provided. No CONSORT or other reporting checklist is explicitly referenced, which is the sole gap among the applicable criteria.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Methods are detailed and replicable, the trial is registered, limitations are extensively discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed; only a reporting-guideline checklist is not referenced.

Evidence

paraphrase[Results, Trial registration / Funding]

“ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04343521 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04343521)”

“Out-of-cluster ABD exposure may be a key contributing factor to the reduced efficacy observed in the cohort, although adjustment for mobility did not alter the efficacy estimate.”

Discussion ¶3Find in source

absence[Throughout manuscript]

No reporting guideline checklist referenced

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Methods are detailed, trial registration and funding/COI are reported, all outcomes are reported transparently including null results, and limitations are discussed; only an explicit CONSORT guideline statement is missing.

Evidence

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

AbstractFind in source

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

ConclusionFind in source

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

FundingFind in source

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

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 32 references by DOI: 29 verified — 3 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

1 finding · worst low

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

Wording or formatting errors that need correctingAssessed

7 copyedit issues flagged (2 major): mostly consistency, other, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This is a published paper, not a pre-submission manuscript. An informed reader should weigh the missing data-availability statement and the generic IRB approval as transparency concerns. The internal discrepancies (registration identifier, case counts, coverage figures) are minor but warrant a correction or clarification from the authors. The core findings are supported by the reported analyses, and the null result is reported transparently.

1.
HIGHdata code
Add a data-availability statement to the manuscript, naming a concrete access route (e.g., de-identified data on request from a data-access committee or via a platform like Vivli).
Clinical trials are expected to include a data-sharing statement; its absence is a major transparency gap.
2.
HIGHethics
Replace the generic IRB approval statement with the specific approving body(ies) and protocol number(s) (e.g., 'Ethics Committee of the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, protocol #XXX').
Named IRBs and protocol numbers are standard for clinical trial reporting and are needed for verification.
3.
HIGHreporting
Correct the trial registration identifier in the Abstract: replace 'identifier 30041-105' with the actual ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04343521.
The abstract mislabels the registration number, which could cause confusion and is a reporting error that should be corrected via erratum.
4.
HIGHdata code
Publish the bespoke analysis code (Cox/permutation-CI, negative binomial, and Poisson models) in a version-controlled public repository with a DOI, and cite it in the Methods.
Code sharing enables reproducibility of the statistical analyses, especially for the non-standard permutation-based confidence intervals.
5.
HIGHreporting
Reference a completed CONSORT cluster-trial checklist in the Methods or as supplementary material.
CONSORT adherence is expected for published RCTs; its absence is a minor but notable reporting gap.
6.
HIGHreporting
Reconcile the discrepancy between the 150 TIRS surveillance cases in the Abstract and the 149 cases that sum from the year-by-year breakdown in the Community Impact section.
Internal inconsistency in case counts reduces trust in the data; a correction or clarification is needed.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify the two different coverage figures for TIRS houses: '90–96%' in the Methods/Results and '62–75%' in the Discussion, specifying the denominator each refers to.
Contradictory coverage numbers without explanation may confuse readers about intervention fidelity.
8.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Remove the orphaned formatting fragment 'stical Computing&) ). Associated Data Supplementary Materials Supplement' at the end of the manuscript.
This appears to be a rendering artifact that should be cleaned up for a professional presentation.
9.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Resolve the empty citation markers in the Methods (', ,') and normalize the citation formatting throughout.
Empty citation markers are a typesetting error that should be fixed.
10.
LOWreporting
Add a brief rationale for the unblinded design in the Methods (e.g., 'blinding was impossible due to the visible nature of indoor spraying').
Although the design is stated as unblinded, a justification for why blinding was not feasible strengthens the reporting.
11.
LOWother
Specify the manufacturer and assay details for the 'commercially available ELISAs' used for baseline serostatus.
Full identification of key reagents improves reproducibility, though it is a minor gap for this field trial.

Full text (27,573 chars)Analyzed: Aug 10, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

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

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1056/NEJMoa2501069

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/38231db9-f459-4276-b5d8-86b7bc304290" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/38231db9-f459-4276-b5d8-86b7bc304290/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 2.25★ (Weak), 0 critical, 6 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 Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

2ccd3e12fc678dc4e840f5df35991ec1178ec633dbab7d6458770c80001fa6f4

Verify via API

Issued Aug 10, 2026Engine 7.29.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

2.25 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×4−2★
ReportingData & code availability not met−0.5★
ReportingEthical approvals partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Data and code not shared
highDisclosurereviewer-assessedFull detail
No data-availability statement is present, and no accession numbers or code repository are provided, despite these being required for a clinical trial.
“Details of the study design are available in the trial protocol, posted as a with this article at nejm.org”
MethodsFind in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 102OverreachOverstated conclusions · partly checked 03AuthenticityNone found 204DisclosureReporting gaps 05AvailabilityNone found 106CopyeditCopyediting

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst low

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

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

Data authenticity concerns

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

2 findings · worst high

Data and code not sharedAssessed
Ethics/consent reporting incompleteAssessed

Eight Dimensions6 pass · 1 warn · 1 fail

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper clearly establishes the public-health burden of Aedes-borne disease, the failure of classic control tools, and the rationale for randomized evaluation of TIRS.

Evidence

“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.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“rigorous evidence of an intervention’s epidemiological impact is required to inform policy.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“Yet the trial did not replicate the high estimated effectiveness from an observational analysis in Australia.”

Discussion ¶2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Evidence

“In Australia, TIRS deployed to houses during a dengue outbreak prevented up to 86% of cases.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“rigorous evidence of an intervention's epidemiological impact is required to inform policy.”

“Yet the trial did not replicate the high estimated effectiveness from an observational analysis in Australia.”

Discussion ¶1Find in source

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingINADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Evidence

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

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

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

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Evidence

paraphrase[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.”

“A fair coin flip was performed to determine cluster allocation to the TIRS or control arm.”

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

demographicsINADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

For this human cohort, sex and age are reported and balanced across arms; race/ethnicity and comorbidity detail are limited.

Evidence

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

ResultsFind in source

“45.1% were seropositive for dengue (DENV) or Zika (ZIKV) viruses and 24.0% were seropositive for chikungunya virus (CHIKV)”

ResultsFind in source

absence[Results, Trial Cohort]

Race/ethnicity and comorbidity detail not reported

PASSReviewer 2· 75% conf

Sex and age are well reported for a pediatric cohort, with serostatus (health) also given; race/ethnicity and comorbidity details are not reported, so demographics is only partially adequate.

Evidence

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

ResultsFind in source

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementINADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Informed consent is clearly described, but the IRB approval statement is generic and does not name the approving bodies or protocol numbers as required.

Evidence

“Informed consent was obtained from all participants or their guardians”

MethodsFind in source

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

MethodsFind in source

“complied with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform requirements (ICTRP)”

AbstractFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Evidence

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

MethodsFind in source

“For children aged 2–15 years, consent and assent were obtained to participate in the prospective monitoring of ABD”

MethodsFind in source

“complied with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform requirements (ICTRP)”

AbstractFind in source

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The investigational product (pirimiphos-methyl, Actellic 300CS, Syngenta) is named with formulation and dose, and the statistical software and version are identified.

Evidence

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

MethodsFind in source

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Evidence

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

MethodsFind in source

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesN/A

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Analyses are reported by estimation with 95% confidence intervals; all named tests are standard methods appropriate to the clustered design, and software is identified.

Evidence

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

ResultsFind in source

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Evidence

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

Statistical analysisFind in source

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

ResultsFind in source

“A total of 422 ABD cases were confirmed in the cohort (213 in TIRS, 209 in control)”

ResultsFind in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositN/A

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 75% conf

No data-availability statement is present, and no accession numbers or code repository are provided, despite these being required for a clinical trial.

Evidence

absence[Throughout manuscript]

No data availability statement found

“Details of the study design are available in the trial protocol, posted as a with this article at nejm.org”

MethodsFind in source

absence[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

No code repository provided despite bespoke R analyses

FAILReviewer 2· 70% conf

No data availability statement is present, and no analysis code is shared; for a clinical trial a data-sharing statement is required, so no applicable criterion is adequate.

Evidence

“Details of the study design are available in the trial protocol, posted as a with this article at nejm.org”

MethodsFind in source

absence[Whole paper]

No data availability statement is present in the paper.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Evidence

paraphrase[Results, Trial registration / Funding]

“ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04343521 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04343521)”

“Out-of-cluster ABD exposure may be a key contributing factor to the reduced efficacy observed in the cohort, although adjustment for mobility did not alter the efficacy estimate.”

Discussion ¶3Find in source

absence[Throughout manuscript]

No reporting guideline checklist referenced

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Evidence

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

AbstractFind in source

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

ConclusionFind in source

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

FundingFind in source

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

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 32 references by DOI: 29 verified — 3 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

1 finding · worst low

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

Wording or formatting errors that need correctingAssessed

7 copyedit issues flagged (2 major): mostly consistency, other, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHdata code
Add a data-availability statement to the manuscript, naming a concrete access route (e.g., de-identified data on request from a data-access committee or via a platform like Vivli).
Clinical trials are expected to include a data-sharing statement; its absence is a major transparency gap.
2.
HIGHethics
Replace the generic IRB approval statement with the specific approving body(ies) and protocol number(s) (e.g., 'Ethics Committee of the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, protocol #XXX').
Named IRBs and protocol numbers are standard for clinical trial reporting and are needed for verification.
3.
HIGHreporting
Correct the trial registration identifier in the Abstract: replace 'identifier 30041-105' with the actual ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04343521.
The abstract mislabels the registration number, which could cause confusion and is a reporting error that should be corrected via erratum.
4.
HIGHdata code
Publish the bespoke analysis code (Cox/permutation-CI, negative binomial, and Poisson models) in a version-controlled public repository with a DOI, and cite it in the Methods.
Code sharing enables reproducibility of the statistical analyses, especially for the non-standard permutation-based confidence intervals.
5.
HIGHreporting
Reference a completed CONSORT cluster-trial checklist in the Methods or as supplementary material.
CONSORT adherence is expected for published RCTs; its absence is a minor but notable reporting gap.
6.
HIGHreporting
Reconcile the discrepancy between the 150 TIRS surveillance cases in the Abstract and the 149 cases that sum from the year-by-year breakdown in the Community Impact section.
Internal inconsistency in case counts reduces trust in the data; a correction or clarification is needed.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify the two different coverage figures for TIRS houses: '90–96%' in the Methods/Results and '62–75%' in the Discussion, specifying the denominator each refers to.
Contradictory coverage numbers without explanation may confuse readers about intervention fidelity.
8.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Remove the orphaned formatting fragment 'stical Computing&) ). Associated Data Supplementary Materials Supplement' at the end of the manuscript.
This appears to be a rendering artifact that should be cleaned up for a professional presentation.
9.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Resolve the empty citation markers in the Methods (', ,') and normalize the citation formatting throughout.
Empty citation markers are a typesetting error that should be fixed.
10.
LOWreporting
Add a brief rationale for the unblinded design in the Methods (e.g., 'blinding was impossible due to the visible nature of indoor spraying').
Although the design is stated as unblinded, a justification for why blinding was not feasible strengthens the reporting.
11.
LOWother
Specify the manufacturer and assay details for the 'commercially available ELISAs' used for baseline serostatus.
Full identification of key reagents improves reproducibility, though it is a minor gap for this field trial.

Full text (27,573 chars)Analyzed: Aug 10, 2026