Antibody response to first and second dose of BNT162b2 in a cohort of characterized healthcare workers

  1. Andrea Padoan
  2. Luigi Dall'Olmo
  3. Foscarina della Rocca
  4. Francesco Barbaro
  5. Chiara Cosma
  6. Daniela Basso
  7. Annamaria Cattelan
  8. Vito Cianci
  9. Mario Plebani

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. Version published to 10.1016/j.cca.2021.04.006
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.24.21254240: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and all participants gave informed consent (Institutional Review Board of the University of Padua protocol nr 7862).
    IRB: The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and all participants gave informed consent (Institutional Review Board of the University of Padua protocol nr 7862).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Serum S-RBD antibodies against the RBD of the Spike (S) protein of the virus was measured by two already validated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) that determines: a) anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG Ab (Snibe Diagnostics, New Industries Biomedical Engineering Co., Ltd [Snibe], Shenzhen,
    anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The GraphPad Prism version 9.1 for Windows (GraphPad Software, LLC) and Stata v16.1 (Statacorp, Lakeway Drive, TX, USA) were used for assessing univariate and multivariate differences across the studied groups.
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    Statacorp
    suggested: None

    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:
    The paper presents several limitations. First, a more representative number of subjects followed for a longer time is needed. Second, even if anti-S and anti-RBD values have been reported to correlate with in-vitro virus neutralization, the kinetics of neutralizing antibodies after vaccination should be better evaluated. Third, T-cell responses should be evaluated to achieve a better understanding of the immunoresponse after vaccination in both previously infected and infection-naïve subjects. Currently, this is more important as virus variants should affect the efficacy of currently available vaccines and immune-responses mediated by both humoral and T-cells.

    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 10.1101/2021.03.24.21254240v1 on medRxiv