A prospective study of risk factors associated with seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers at a large UK teaching hospital

  1. Daniel J Cooper
  2. Sara Lear
  3. Laura Watson
  4. Ashley Shaw
  5. Mark Ferris
  6. Rainer Doffinger
  7. Rachel Bousfield
  8. Katherine Sharrocks
  9. Michael P. Weekes
  10. Ben Warne
  11. Dominic Sparkes
  12. Nick K Jones
  13. Lucy Rivett
  14. Matthew Routledge
  15. Afzal Chaudhry
  16. Katherine Dempsey
  17. Montgomery Matson
  18. Adil Lakha
  19. George Gathercole
  20. Olivia O'Connor
  21. Emily Wilson
  22. Orthi Shahzad
  23. Kieran Toms
  24. Rachel Thompson
  25. Ian Halsall
  26. David Halsall
  27. Sally Houghton
  28. Sofia Papadia
  29. Nathalie Kingston
  30. Kathleen E Stirrups
  31. Barbara Graves
  32. Paul Townsend
  33. Neil Walker
  34. Hannah Stark
  35. Daniela De Angelis
  36. Shaun Seaman
  37. Gordon Dougan
  38. John R Bradley
  39. M. Estée Török
  40. Ian Goodfellow
  41. Stephen Baker

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.jinf.2022.08.030
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.03.20220699: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
    IRB: Ethical approval: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the East of England – Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 220277).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were analysed using Stata v14.2 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).
    Stata
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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.
    • 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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.03.20220699v1 on medRxiv