Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

  1. Russell M. Viner
  2. Oliver T. Mytton
  3. Chris Bonell
  4. G. J. Melendez-Torres
  5. Joseph Ward
  6. Lee Hudson
  7. Claire Waddington
  8. James Thomas
  9. Simon Russell
  10. Fiona van der Klis
  11. Archana Koirala
  12. Shamez Ladhani
  13. Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths
  14. Nicholas G. Davies
  15. Robert Booy
  16. Rosalind M. Eggo

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.20.20108126: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Our study is subject to a number of limitations. We remain early in the pandemic and data continue to evolve. It is possible that unknown factors related to age, e.g. transience of infection or waning of immunity, bias findings in ways we don’t yet understand. Some studies were low quality and nearly all included studies were open to bias. The secondary infection rate in some CTS was low and this may represent an underestimate of the unmitigated household attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 as transmission chains were cut short because of strict control measures.50 Most of the CTS were undertaken when strict social distancing measures had been introduced, e.g. closures of schools and workplaces, restriction of travel. This would have reduced contacts outside the home, especially contacts between children, but it may have increased contacts between children and adults by increasing the household contact rate. The number of contacts nominated and traced for 0-19 year olds was low compared with adults in some studies,12,28 which may have introduced bias. We identified 3 CTS from Guangdong province11,51,52 which were excluded as they overlapped with Liu et al.,26 however findings were unchanged if these studies were included. We included two recent large CTS from India28 and South Korea12 however numbers of children and data quality appeared low, making firm conclusions difficult. For population screening studies, the numbers of children tested was small in most of the studies...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.4573
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.20.20108126v2 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.20.20108126: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.RandomizationPopulation-based sampling was undertaken in a random sample of a randomly chosen subset of municipalities across the Netherlands .Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    ” We searched PubMed and medRxiv on 16 May 2020 and identified 6327 studies, with additional studies identified through handsearching of cited references (2) and professional contacts (4).
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, SCR_004846)

    Results from OddPub: We did not find a statement about open data. We also did not find a statement about open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.20.20108126v1 on medRxiv