Effect of BCG Danish and oral polio vaccine on neonatal mortality in newborn babies weighing less than 2000 g in India: multicentre open label randomised controlled trial (BLOW2).

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Effect of BCG Danish and oral polio vaccine on neonatal mortality in newborn babies weighing less than 2000 g in India: multicentre open label randomised controlled trial (BLOW2).
Item: Effect of BCG Danish and oral polio vaccine on neonatal mortality in newborn babies weighing less than 2000 g in India: multicentre open label randomised controlled trial (BLOW2).
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Adhisivam B, Kamalarathnam C, Bhat BV, Jayaraman K, Namachivayam SP, Shann F, McSharry B, David P, Raja, Sundaram M

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 2.75★ (Weak), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Effect of BCG Danish and oral polio vaccine on neonatal mortality in newborn babies weighing less than 2000 g in India: multicentre open label randomised controlled trial (BLOW2).”

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

2.75 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×3−1.5★
ClaimsOverstated claim−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

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: 4 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 surfaced3 types

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

Overstated conclusions1

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 overstated beyond the evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps1

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/code availability incompleteAssessed

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.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported randomised controlled trial with a strong scientific premise, rigorous design, and appropriate statistical analysis. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement, which lacks a concrete access mechanism or repository deposit, and the absence of an explicit reporting guideline checklist.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on every status; no divergence required reconciliation. The study is an interventional RCT; non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification recomputed only 2 reported tests (both consistent); other statistics were not machine-verified and should not be assumed correct beyond that.

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 1 via agent-written checks.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior randomised trials in Guinea-Bissau and the authors' own BLOW1 trials, acknowledging conflicting results and the need to test a different BCG strain. The rationale for using BCG Danish and OPV is clearly linked to the hypothesis that non-specific effects may reduce neonatal mortality. The paper explicitly addresses limitations of prior research, such as the different BCG strains and the need for a larger trial.

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 strong scientific premise by citing prior trials and meta-analyses, providing a logical rationale for the study, and addressing limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“In three randomised trials in newborns weighing <2500 g in Guinea-Bissau, none had a statistically significant effect on the primary outcome from the administration of BCG Danish vaccine (Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen) at discharge from hospital, but meta-analysis showed a reduction in neonatal mortality of 38% (95% CI 17% to 54%)”