Estimation of seroprevalence of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) using preserved serum at an outpatient setting in Kobe, Japan: A cross-sectional study

  1. Asako Doi
  2. Kentaro Iwata
  3. Hirokazu Kuroda
  4. Toshikazu Hasuike
  5. Seiko Nasu
  6. Aya Kanda
  7. Tomomi Nagao
  8. Hiroaki Nishioka
  9. Keisuke Tomii
  10. Takeshi Morimoto
  11. Yasuki Kihara

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100747
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.26.20079822: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The ethics committee at Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital approved the current study.
    RandomizationTests were done for randomly selected preserved serum from patients who visited outpatient clinics of the hospital and received blood testing for any reason.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    We conducted a cross-sectional serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibody (immunoglobuin G, or IgG) at Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, a tertiary care medical center in Kobe, Japan.
    SARS-CoV-2
    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:
    Our study has several inherent limitations. First, the sensitivity and specificity of serology assay to estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection is not fully studied. There might be underdiagnosis of the viral infection, particularly at the early stage of infection, or those with immunosuppressed. The possibility of overdiagnosis by cross-reaction with other viruses, such as conventional coronavirus as a cause of common cold, although it had never been documented as of this writing, should be considered. Second, the population of our cohort might not be the same as one in Kobe City. The samples were obtained from the patients from the clinic. Although we adjusted the age and sex distribution to fit the general population, the selection bias should be unavoidable. Further serological studies targeting randomly selected people in Kobe City could clarify this potential limitation. However, even we put these potential limitations into consideration, the difference between what had been reported as the confirmed cases and estimated cases in our study is so huge, and our interpretation of the findings sounds rather robust and valid. In conclusion, our cross-sectional serological study suggests that the actual number of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Kobe, Japan is far more than the confirmed cases by PCR testing. Further studies is needed to elucidate the seroprevalence in other regions in Japan and the dabate regarding lower mortality in Japan.

    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. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.26.20079822: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementThe ethics committee at Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital approved the current stud Results There were 33 positive IgG among 1,000 serum samples (3.3%, 95%CI: 2.3%-4.6%).RandomizationMethods We conducted a cross-sectional serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibody (immunoglobuin IgG) at Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, a tertiary care medical center in Kobe, Jap Tests were done for randomly selected preserved serum from patients who visited outpatient cli of the hospital and received blood testing for any reason.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Methods We conducted a cross-sectional serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibody (immunoglobuin IgG) at Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, a tertiary care medical center in Kobe, Jap Tests were done for randomly selected preserved serum from patients who visited outpatient cli of the hospital and received blood testing for any reason.
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
          <div style="margin-bottom:8px">
        <div><b>immunoglobuin IgG</b></div>
        <div>suggested: None</div>
      </div>
    </td></tr></table>

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.26.20079822 on medRxiv