Association of contact to small children with a mild course of COVID-19

  1. Martin Dugas
  2. Inga-Marie Schrempf
  3. Kevin Ochs
  4. Christopher Frömmel
  5. Leonard Greulich
  6. Philipp Neuhaus
  7. Phil-Robin Tepasse
  8. Hartmut H.-J. Schmidt

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. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.20.20157149: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: In the context of the Coronaplasma Project (local ethic committee approval: AZ 2020-220-f-S) at the University Hospital of Münster, Germany, an online-survey of 4,010 persons who recovered from a confirmed COVID-19 infection was performed.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    This cohort volunteered to donate plasma with antibodies against COVID-19.
    COVID-19
    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:
    This survey has important limitations: Our cohort is not a representative sample of the general population. Like in many surveys, the response rate is limited and evaluable data was only available for about 30% of the contacted persons. Data were provided by laypersons and are not validated by medical professionals. And importantly, association is not causation. What can be concluded from this survey and what are possible next steps? It is known that severe COVID-19 cases in small children are rare. There seems to be an association of contact to small children with mild course of COVID-19 in adults. This finding needs to be validated in other settings. An obvious hypothesis derived from this data is that certain childhood infections might provide partial immunity against COVID-19 and thereby potentially could reduce the need for ICU therapy in adults. To test this hypothesis, laboratory tests for suitable pathogens should be performed, preferably with biomaterial collected before the COVID-19 infection. Candidates for such pathogens include endemic coronaviruses like HCoV-NL63 and -229E, which are commonly found in children. From a public health perspective, specific biomarkers to predict the course of COVID-19 before an infection would be highly valuable to identify patients at risk, because even healthy young and middle-aged adults can die from COVID-19. If cross reactivity with relatively harmless pathogens like endemic coronaviruses would be demonstrated, this might even ...

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.003
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.20.20157149: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.Randomizationnot detected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variable56% were females, 44% males.

    Table 2: Resources

    Data from additional tools added to each annotation on a weekly basis.

    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 10.1101/2020.07.20.20157149v1 on medRxiv