Population-based surveys of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in Southern Brazil

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.01.20087205: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical approval was obtained from the Brazilian’s National Ethics Committee (process number 30415520.2.0000.5313), with written informed consent from all participants.
    Consent: Ethical approval was obtained from the Brazilian’s National Ethics Committee (process number 30415520.2.0000.5313), with written informed consent from all participants.
    RandomizationAll household members were listed at the beginning of the visit, and one individual was randomly selected through an app used for data collection.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Following the introduction of the sample, a solution containing labelled detector anti-immunoglobulin monoclonal antibodies is added.
    anti-immunoglobulin
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All analyses were performed using R version 3.6.1 (https://www.r-project.org/).
    https://www.r-project.org/
    suggested: (R Project for Statistical Computing, RRID:SCR_001905)

    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:
    The limitations of our analyses include the restriction of the sample to sentinel cities that jointly account for 31% of the state’s population, while smaller towns and rural areas were not included. Second, antibody tests result in many false negatives for recent infections, particularly within the first two weeks since contagion, and thus prevalence reflects levels of infection a week or two prior to the survey, about 15 days after the first case was reported in the state. The non-response rate at household level, estimated at 17.9%, was low compared to other population-based studies,3,4, or to studies based on volunteers. Our samples had fewer children than expected, which was probably due to their reluctance to undergo a finger prick when randomly selected within the household; in these cases, a second person was randomly selected and if that person also refused the household was replaced. Lastly, our results were at the lower range of the 95% confidence interval for the false positive rate, which in the pooled estimate from four validation studies was estimated at 1.0% (95% Cl 0.3%;2.2%). In these studies, specificity was measured in frozen samples. Whitman and colleagues, in their analyses of 10 lateral flow tests, observed “moderate-to-strong positive bands in several pre-COVlD-19 blood donor specimens, some of them positive by multiple assays, suggesting the possibility of non-specific binding of plasma proteins, non-specific antibodies, or cross-reactivity with other...

    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.