Determinants of early antibody responses to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in a cohort of exposed and naïve healthcare workers

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.08.21263232: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Ethics: Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to study initiation.
    IRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at HCB (references HCB/2020/0336 and HCB/2021/0196).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationStudy design, population and setting: The baseline study population included 578 randomly selected HCW from HCB who delivered care and services directly or indirectly to patients.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Quantification of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2: We measured IgA, IgG and IgM antibody levels (median fluorescence intensity, MFI) to different SARS-CoV-2 antigens using previously developed assays based on the quantitative suspension array technology Luminex (Supplementary Information) [37, 41].
    SARS-CoV-2: We measured IgA, IgG
    suggested: None
    IgM
    suggested: None
    Antibody avidity was determined as the percentage of IgA and IgG levels against RBD, S and S2 antigens measured incubating samples with a chaotropic agent (urea 4M, 30 min at room temperature) over the IgA and IgG levels measured in the same samples without chaotropic agent.
    S2
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data for each participant were collected and managed using REDCap version 8.8.2 hosted at ISGlobal through a standardized electronic questionnaire as previously described [36].
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    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.