Characteristics of 1573 healthcare workers who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Milan, Lombardy, Italy

  1. A. Lombardi
  2. D. Consonni
  3. M. Carugno
  4. G. Bozzi
  5. D. Mangioni
  6. A. Muscatello
  7. V. Castelli
  8. E. Palomba
  9. A.P. Cantù
  10. F. Ceriotti
  11. B. Tiso
  12. A.C. Pesatori
  13. L. Riboldi
  14. A. Bandera
  15. G. Lunghi
  16. A. Gori

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.cmi.2020.06.013
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.07.20094276: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of our institution and was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The second one employed a GeneFinder® COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit (OSANG Healthcare, Anyangcheondong-ro, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) on ELITech InGenius® instrument (Torino, Italy).
    OSANG Healthcare
    suggested: None
    Statistical analysis was performed with Stata 16 (StataCorp. 2019)
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    Moreover, technical limitation can be responsible of falsely negative test, considering that the sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection has been estimated to be around 71%.16 Finally, even if it was not the main goal of our study (because a longer follow-up time would be required), we observed a median time from first positive test to a negative test of 23 days. This is in accordance with several already published reports and have a significant impact on the efficiency of health systems.17–19 Indeed, it means that an infected HCW will be unavailable to perform its duty for at least three weeks since diagnosis (or even four weeks if we consider the upper 95% confidence limit). Our results were based on a three genes qualitative RT-PCR. To understand the real significance of this viral detection new studies assessing the infectivity of viral particles and the possible impact of quantitative techniques are needed. In conclusion, our results show that symptomatic HCWs exposed to confirmed cases of COVID-19 are almost eight times more likely to be infected than asymptomatic HCWs. Nevertheless, also a non-negligible amount of asymptomatic HCWs is infected and accounts for almost one third of positive tests. Therefore, screening strategies may be tailored according to the available resources. Taste and smell alterations and fever should be considered the most relevant alarm bells suggesting the opportunity of performing a test. Finally, the median time to become...

    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 10.1101/2020.05.07.20094276 on medRxiv