SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethical approval: This study was approved by the HMC and Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar Institutional Review Boards. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Reinfection risk and rate: Risk of documented reinfection was assessed by quantifying the proportion of cases with good or some evidence for reinfection among all eligible anti-SARS-CoV-2 positive cases with an antibody-positive test ≥14 days from end-of-study censoring (excluding cases whose residual blood was tested for antibodies after death). anti-SARS-CoV-2suggested: NoneBoth Risk … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethical approval: This study was approved by the HMC and Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar Institutional Review Boards. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Reinfection risk and rate: Risk of documented reinfection was assessed by quantifying the proportion of cases with good or some evidence for reinfection among all eligible anti-SARS-CoV-2 positive cases with an antibody-positive test ≥14 days from end-of-study censoring (excluding cases whose residual blood was tested for antibodies after death). anti-SARS-CoV-2suggested: NoneBoth Risk of documented infection and Incidence rate of documented infection in this antibody-negative cohort were assessed as described above for the antibody-positive cohort, but with the event defined here as the first PCR-positive swab that is ≥14 days after the first antibody-negative test. antibody-negative test.suggested: NoneResults 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:This study has some limitations. By study design, primary infection was indirectly ascertained through serological testing, thereby including only a subset with documented PCR-confirmed primary infections. Having said so, serological testing was based on a high-quality, validated platform, the Roche platform, one of the best available and most extensively used and investigated commercial platforms, with a specificity of at least 99.8% [39, 40]. Thus, it is unlikely that misclassified antibody-positives could have biased our findings. The antibody-negative cohort had a higher proportion of women than the antibody-positive cohort, due to the differential spread of the infection among women versus men in Qatar [12, 14, 16, 17]. Viral genome sequencing analysis was possible for only a subset of reinfections, either because primary infection was only identified through antibody testing with no record of earlier PCR testing, or because the reinfection swab could not be retrieved. Reinfections were confirmed by noting differences in the viral genome between the primary infection and the reinfection. While not likely, it is theoretically possible that these differences may have occurred due to within-host evolution of the virus, as in the context of a prolonged infection [32, 41]. The potential effect of these limitations is likely an overestimation, rather than underestimation, of the incidence of reinfection, thereby affirming the conclusion of the rarity of reinfections. In conclu...
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.
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Ethical approval This study was approved by the HMC and Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar Institutional Review Boards. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable The cohort included 8,953 (20.8%) women and 34,091 men (79.2%) of 158 nationalities Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Six of the remaining 43,050 antibody-positive persons were also excluded because their residual blood was tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after death. SARS-CoV-2suggested: NoneHowever, the risk of … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Ethical approval This study was approved by the HMC and Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar Institutional Review Boards. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable The cohort included 8,953 (20.8%) women and 34,091 men (79.2%) of 158 nationalities Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Six of the remaining 43,050 antibody-positive persons were also excluded because their residual blood was tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after death. SARS-CoV-2suggested: NoneHowever, the risk of documented reinfection was rare, at ~1 per 1,000 infected persons, at least for a few months after the first antibody-positive test. antibody-positive test.suggested: NoneResults 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:
This study has some limitations. By study design, primary infection was indirectly ascertained through serological testing, thereby including only a subset with documented PCR-confirmed primary infections. Having said so, serological testing was based on a high-quality, validated platform, the Roche platform, one of the best available and most extensively used and investigated commercial platforms, with a specificity of at least 99.8% [38, 39]. Thus, it is unlikely that misclassified antibody-positives could have biased our findings. Viral genome sequencing analysis was possible for only a subset of reinfections, either because primary infection was only identified through antibody testing with no record of earlier PCR testing, or because the reinfection swab could not be retrieved. Reinfections were confirmed by noting differences in the viral genome between the primary infection and the reinfection. While not likely, it is theoretically possible that these differences may have occurred due to within-host evolution of the virus, as in the context of a prolonged infection [32, 40]. The potential effect of these limitations is likely an overestimation, rather than underestimation, of the incidence of reinfection, thereby affirming the conclusion of the rarity of reinfections. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was investigated in a large cohort of antibody-positive individuals who were followed for as long as 35 weeks. While the study documented some reinfections, they cons...
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.
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.
-