Perceived versus proven SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses in health-care professionals

  1. Georg M. N. Behrens
  2. Anne Cossmann
  3. Metodi V. Stankov
  4. Torsten Witte
  5. Diana Ernst
  6. Christine Happle
  7. Alexandra Jablonka

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

There have been concerns about high rates of thus far undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections in the health-care system. The COVID-19 Contact (CoCo) Study follows 217 frontline health-care professionals at a university hospital with weekly SARS-CoV-2-specific serology (IgA/IgG). Study participants estimated their personal likelihood of having had a SARS-CoV-2 infection with a mean of 21% [median 15%, interquartile range (IQR) 5–30%]. In contrast, anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG prevalence was about 1–2% at baseline. Regular anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing of health-care professionals may aid in directing resources for protective measures and care of COVID-19 patients in the long run.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s15010-020-01461-0
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.12.20094524: (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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.12.20094524v1 on medRxiv