Heterologous two-dose Ebola vaccine regimen in pregnant women in Rwanda: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Heterologous two-dose Ebola vaccine regimen in pregnant women in Rwanda: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial.
Item: Heterologous two-dose Ebola vaccine regimen in pregnant women in Rwanda: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Nyombayire J, Ingabire R, Mazzei A, Sharkey T, Umuhoza C, Mukamuyango J, Allen S, Tichacek A, Parker R, Wall KM, Katwere M, Keshinro B, Gaddah A, Wang Y, Forcheh CA, McLean C, Oriol-Mathieu V, Luhn K, Robinson C, Karita E

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Heterologous two-dose Ebola vaccine regimen in pregnant women in Rwanda: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.

Problems surfaced1 type

Numerical inconsistencies1

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

This Αlpha¹ 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 paper is a well-conducted and transparently reported phase 3 randomized trial of an Ebola vaccine regimen in pregnant women. All eight rigor dimensions are adequately addressed, with clear ethical approvals, detailed methods, and appropriate statistical reporting. Minor copyediting issues and a few reporting clarifications (e.g., denominator for primary outcomes) are the only concerns.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on 'pass' for each; the only minor divergence was on the power analysis sub-criterion (Reviewer 2 rated it 'reported but inadequate'), which does not change the overall dimension status. The statistics verification component checked 0 tests (none were machine-verifiable), so no statistical claims are independently confirmed beyond the reviewers' plausibility checks. The citation check found no retracted or unresolved references.

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

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites multiple prior studies on the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo regimen in nonpregnant populations and notes the lack of data in pregnant women. The rationale for the study is logically derived from the high mortality of Ebola in pregnancy and the absence of vaccine safety data in this population. Limitations of prior research are implicitly addressed by the study's design to fill the gap in pregnant populations.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with extensive prior work cited and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Previous studies have found that the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen is well-tolerated and immunogenic, with mild-to-moderate adverse events (AEs) of short duration and no sequelae”