Structured PREreview of Safety and efficacy of the blood-stage malaria vaccine RH5.1/Matrix-M in Burkina Faso: interim results of a double-blind, randomised, controlled phase 2b trial in children

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Partly

The background and the literature are too narrow for the readers to get a comprehensive understanding. It might need to be expanded to cover different aspects of the study objectives in other parts of Africa's malaria vaccine.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

I want the authors to clarify the decisions made around the sample size. It is small for broader decisions. The control sample size is a great concern. Was this a pilot trial? Some headings might need to be readjustment such as "randomization and masking" to "randomization and allocation". Additionally, ITT is recommended as the main analysis instead of per protocol. Authors might want to clarify

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

yes, the conclusion derived match the overall result of the study and seems to meet the intended objectives.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

Yes, the data is well presented using the cox-regression model and odd ratio. Moreover P-value and confidence intervals were reported properly. Visualization of the data using tables and graphs also easy to read and understand.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

They discussed their findings in addition to some study's strengths and limitations. Moreover, they provided strong recommendations for the forthcoming trials regarding the malaria vaccine.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

the study significantly advances the existing knowledge regarding the application of the malaria vaccine in Africa including the development of an adjunct vaccine that targets two stages of the malaria parasite.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.