Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Italian healthcare workers: a multicenter study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, yet limited information is available on risk factors of infection. We pooled data on occupational surveillance of 10,654 HCW who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in six Italian centers. Information was available on demographics, job title, department of employment, source of exposure, use of personal protective equipment (PPEs), and COVID-19-related symptoms. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of infection. The prevalence of infection ranged from 3.0 to 22.0%, and was correlated with that of the respective areas. Women were at lower risk of infection compared to men. Fever, cough, dyspnea and malaise were the symptoms most strongly associated with infection, together with anosmia and ageusia. No differences in the risk of infection were detected according to job title, or working in a COVID-19 designated department. Reported contact with a patient inside or outside the workplace was a risk factor. Use of a mask was strongly protective against risk of infection as was use of gloves. The use of a mask by the source of exposure (patient or colleague) had an independent effect in reducing infection risk.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.29.20158717: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was reviewed and considered exempt by the Ethics Committee of the University of Bologna. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Despite the limitations in the available data, in particular those from the general population,9 these results confirm and quantify the variability in the risk of infection experienced by HCW according to the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.29.20158717: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was reviewed and considered exempt by the Ethics Committee of the University of Bologna. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Despite the limitations in the available data, in particular those from the general population,9 these results confirm and quantify the variability in the risk of infection experienced by HCW according to the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the patient population of the hospitals where they worked. A survey of 1,097 HCW from six hospitals in the Netherlands also reported ample variability between regions.10 Middle-aged women in Italy experienced a slightly higher incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to men, although incidence at older age and the proportion of cases of severe COVID-19 and death across in the whole age range were lower. For example, as of June 3rd, 2020, the female/male ratio in the number of cases in the age range 30-69 was 1.07.11 compared to a ratio of 1.02 in the Italian population. In this population of HCW, on the other hand, the risk of infection was lower in women compared to men; however, in the subset of HCW with information on source of contact, no difference in risk was shown according to gender (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74-1.27 after adjustment for contact with colleague and patient). This suggests that any difference may be due to circumstance of exposure rather than gender differences. In a study of 72 HCW from Wuhan, China, men were at higher risk of infection compared to women.6 Age was not associated with risk of exposure in this population, similar to a small study from Wuhan, China.6 These results suggest that differences by age obse...
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 10.1101/2020.07.29.20158717: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement The study was reviewed and considered exempt by the Ethics Committee of the University o Bologna. Randomization 18 When we searched for randomized trials comparing the protective effects of surgical vs. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable Women were at lower risk of infection compared to men. 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.29.20158717: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement The study was reviewed and considered exempt by the Ethics Committee of the University o Bologna. Randomization 18 When we searched for randomized trials comparing the protective effects of surgical vs. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable Women were at lower risk of infection compared to men. 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.
-
