Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Personal protective effect of wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms in adults: pragmatic randomised superiority trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Personal protective effect of wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms in adults: pragmatic randomised superiority trial.
Item: Personal protective effect of wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms in adults: pragmatic randomised superiority trial.
Rating: 39
Author: Αlpha¹

Solberg RB, Fretheim A, Elgersma IH, Fagernes M, Iversen BG, Hemkens LG, Rose CJ, Elstrøm P

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 1★ (Critical), 2 critical, 1 high issue for “Personal protective effect of wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms in adults: pragmatic randomised superiority trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 16, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

1 / 5

Critical — a demonstrable failure

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

StatisticsImpossible or misreported statistic ×2−2★
IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
CitationsUnresolved reference ×3−0.75★
StatisticsStatistic did not reproduce−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★
StatisticsPrinted percentage does not match its own count (capped) ×6−0.25★

A demonstrable critical failure caps the rating at the minimum, regardless of the deductions above.

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

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 2 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced7 types

Numerical inconsistencies4

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.

Summary statistic impossible for the stated N (GRIM/GRIMMER)Recomputed
Reported statistics do not recomputeRecomputed
Printed percentage does not match its own countRecomputed
Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions2

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.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed

Broken references and links1

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.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

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.

Critical findings

• PERCENT: 28.4% does not match the reported count 655/2262
• PERCENT: 5.8% does not match the reported count 114/2262

This pragmatic randomised trial is methodologically robust, with clear randomisation, blinding of researchers, a pre-specified power analysis, and transparent reporting including trial registration and data/code sharing. Minor copyedit issues (typos, truncated percentages, missing citation) and three references not found in registries are the main concerns for a post-publication audit.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, which is adopted. The evaluation covers all eight rigor dimensions; no dimensions were excluded as not applicable. The statistics verification component checked 14 tests, finding minor rounding discrepancies but no decision errors.

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

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Recomputed 6 tests: 5 consistent, 1 inconsistent; 5 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 1 via agent-written checks. 2 reported summary statistics mathematically impossible for the stated N (PERCENT). 6 printed percentages that do not match their own count.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites systematic reviews of observational studies and a Cochrane review of randomised trials, acknowledging the discrepant findings and methodological limitations. The rationale for the trial follows logically from the identified evidence gaps, and the study design addresses prior limitations such as insufficient power and low adherence.

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, citing prior observational and randomised evidence, and provides a logical rationale for the trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Systematic reviews of observational studies have reported an association between wearing face masks and lower risk of respiratory infections. On the basis of findings from 10 randomised trials, however, the authors of a recent Cochrane review concluded that use of a face mask in the community had little or no effect on risk of developing a respiratory viral infection.”