Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. P. Galanis
  2. I. Vraka
  3. D. Fragkou
  4. A. Bilali
  5. D. Kaitelidou

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 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218289: (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 variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    We searched for any serology test (e.g. ELISA, CLIA, etc.) detects SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgA, IgG, and IgM) in all HCWs.
    IgA, IgG
    suggested: None
    IgM
    suggested: None
    Data extraction and quality assessment: Data collected included study characteristics such as authors, location, data collection time, sample size, setting, study design, antibodies test, sensitivity and specificity for the antibodies test, number of HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, factors associated with the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and the level of analysis (univariate or multivariable).
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and pre-print services (medRχiv and bioRχiv) from inception up to August 24, 2020.
    PubMed/MEDLINE
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has several limitations. First, 14 out of 49 included studies were published in pre-print services which do not apply peer-review process. Nevertheless, we assessed studies quality and we performed subgroup analysis according to publication type (journal or pre-print service) and studies quality. Second, the heterogeneity between results was very high. We performed random effects model and subgroups analysis to overcome this limitation. Third, seroprevalence reported in studies could be underestimated or overestimated depending on the applied antibody test. Validity (sensitivity and specificity) of the antibodies tests have not been reported in most of the included studies. We performed meta-regression analysis with sensitivity and specificity of the antibodies tests according to the manufacturers’ data as the moderator variables in order to overcome this limitation. Fourth, time between exposure and antibody testing in studies is unknown and seropositivity may have been missed if testing was too early. This systematic bias could result in an underestimation of the seroprevalence. Last, the data regarding the factors that are associated with the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were very scarce and we cannot perform meta-analysis; thus a qualitative approach was applied to assess these factors.

    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.jhin.2020.11.008
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218289v2 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218289v1 on medRxiv