Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital workers – A multicentre cross-sectional study

  1. Christian R. Kahlert
  2. Raphael Persi
  3. Sabine Güsewell
  4. Thomas Egger
  5. Onicio B. Leal-Neto
  6. Johannes Sumer
  7. Domenica Flury
  8. Angela Brucher
  9. Eva Lemmenmeier
  10. J. Carsten Möller
  11. Philip Rieder
  12. Reto Stocker
  13. Danielle Vuichard-Gysin
  14. Benedikt Wiggli
  15. Werner C. Albrich
  16. Baharak Babouee Flury
  17. Ulrike Besold
  18. Jan Fehr
  19. Stefan P. Kuster
  20. Allison McGeer
  21. Lorenz Risch
  22. Matthias Schlegel
  23. Andrée Friedl
  24. Pietro Vernazza
  25. Philipp Kohler

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.cmi.2021.05.014
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.10.20229005v3 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.10.20229005v2 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.10.20229005: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Employees registered online and provided electronic consent.
    IRB: The study was approved by the ethics committee of Eastern Switzerland (#2020-00502).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    A subgroup of samples with a positive signal in the ECLIA (at a cut-off index, COI, ≥ 1) were also tested with an Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA, Euroimmune, Germany, detection each of IgG and IgA antibodies against S1 domain of the spike-(S)-protein including the immunologically relevant receptor binding domain).
    S1
    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 limitations. First, causality cannot be inferred between exposures and seropositivity. Second, sampling bias may have arisen given that study participation was non-mandatory. Third, we relied on mostly self-reported data in our questionnaire which is subject to recall and other bias. Fourth, because of the low disease prevalence we have to assume that a certain proportion of our serology results are false positive. However, the reported specificity of >99% for the ECLIA [27], the positive confirmatory results in our tested subsample and the overall low proportion of discordant results between PCR and serology supports the validity of our testing approach. Strengths of the study are its large sample size, the inclusion of different types of healthcare institutions across a large geographic area, and consideration of not only occupational but a broad range of non-occupational risk factors. In particular the latter differentiates our study from most other seroprevalence studies performed among HCW. To conclude, having a COVID-19 positive household member was by far the strongest predictor for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among our HCW. Furthermore, we identified several modifiable variables associated with seropositivity, including contact to COVID-19 co-workers, poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions, and possibly frequent visits to the hospital canteen. Living with children below 12 years of age in the same household was independently associated with...

    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.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.10.20229005v1 on medRxiv