Antibody Status and Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Workers
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20234369: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethics statement: Deidentified data from staff testing were obtained from the Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database (IORD) which has generic Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Confidentiality Advisory Group approvals (19/SC/0403, 19/CAG/0144). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Those with only negative antibody tests, were considered at risk of infection from their first (negative) antibody test until the earlier of the study end (18-November-2020) or their first PCR-positive test. 18-November-2020suggested…SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20234369: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethics statement: Deidentified data from staff testing were obtained from the Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database (IORD) which has generic Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Confidentiality Advisory Group approvals (19/SC/0403, 19/CAG/0144). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Those with only negative antibody tests, were considered at risk of infection from their first (negative) antibody test until the earlier of the study end (18-November-2020) or their first PCR-positive test. 18-November-2020suggested: NoneThose who were initially antibody-negative and then seroconverted were allowed to contribute to the analysis twice; once while at risk of infection and antibody-negative and then subsequently while antibody-positive. antibody-positivesuggested: NonePrimary analyses used anti-trimeric spike IgG assay results as these were expected a priori to relate most closely to neutralising activity and protection from infection.7,10 We also conducted two secondary analyses, considering anti-nucleocapsid antibodies and also a combined model where we allowed individuals to have one of three baseline antibody statuses (both assays negative, both positive, only one positive). anti-trimeric spike IgGsuggested: Noneanti-nucleocapsidsuggested: NoneSoftware and Algorithms Sentences Resources Laboratory assays: Serological investigations were performed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay platform developed by the University of Oxford detecting IgG to SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike antigen, using net-normalised signal cut-off of ≥8 million to determine antibody presence.23,24 Additional serology for IgG to nucleocapsid protein was performed using the Abbott Architect i2000 chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (Abbott, Maidenhead, UK). Abbott Architectsuggested: (Abbott ARCHITECT i1000sr System, RRID:SCR_019328)Abbottsuggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)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.
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20234369: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Ethics statement Deidentified data from staff testing were obtained from the Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database (IORD) which has generic Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Confidentiality Advisory Group approvals (19/SC/0403, 19/CAG/0144). Randomization As rates of asymptomatic testing varied by antibody status, we performed a sensitivity analysis, randomly removing PCR results for seronegative HCWs to match testing rates in seropositive HCWs, yielding an adjusted IRR of 0.28 (95%CI 0.09-0.90, Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable The models used in both panels adjust for age (set at the median … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20234369: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Ethics statement Deidentified data from staff testing were obtained from the Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database (IORD) which has generic Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Confidentiality Advisory Group approvals (19/SC/0403, 19/CAG/0144). Randomization As rates of asymptomatic testing varied by antibody status, we performed a sensitivity analysis, randomly removing PCR results for seronegative HCWs to match testing rates in seropositive HCWs, yielding an adjusted IRR of 0.28 (95%CI 0.09-0.90, Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable The models used in both panels adjust for age (set at the median age, 38 years), gender (set as female) and calendar month (set as October 2020). Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Baseline antibody status was determined using anti-spike and/or anti-nucleocapsid IgG assays and staff followed for up to 30 weeks. anti-nucleocapsid IgGsuggested: (Imported from the IEDB Cat# 3E9, RRID:AB_2848062)Those with only negative antibody tests, were considered at risk of infection from their first (negative) antibody test until the earlier of the study end (18-November-2020) or their first PCR-positive test. 18-November-2020suggested: NoneThose who were initially antibody-negative and then seroconverted were allowed to contribute to the analysis twice; once while at risk of infection and antibody-negative and then subsequently while antibody-positive. antibody-positivesuggested: NonePrimary analyses used anti-trimeric spike IgG assay results as these were expected a priori to relate most closely to neutralising activity and protection from infection. 7,10 We also conducted two secondary analyses, considering anti-nucleocapsid antibodies and also a combined model where we allowed individuals to have one of three baseline antibody statuses (both assays negative, both positive, only one positive). anti-trimeric spike IgGsuggested: NoneResults 12219 HCWs had baseline anti-spike antibodies measured and were followed up between 23-April and 18-November-2020. 11052 (90.4%) HCWs were seronegative and 1167 (9.6%) were seropositive at their first anti-trimeric spike IgG measurement; 79 HCWs seroconverted during the study (Table 1, Figure S1). anti-spikesuggested: NoneIncidence of PCR positivity by baseline anti-spike IgG antibody status 165/11052 (1.5%) HCWs were PCR-positive while anti-spike IgG seronegative, 76 during asymptomatic screening and 89 while symptomatic. anti-spike IgGsuggested: NoneThey were seropositive for anti-spike, but not anti-nucleocapsid antibodies in May. anti-spike ,suggested: Noneanti-nucleocapsidsuggested: NoneEstimated daily incidence by baseline anti-trimeric spike and anti-nucleocapsid spike IgG antibody titre. anti-nucleocapsid spike IgGsuggested: NoneSoftware and Algorithms Sentences Resources Laboratory assays Serological investigations were performed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay platform developed by the University of Oxford detecting IgG to SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike antigen, using net- normalised signal cut-off of ≥8 million to determine antibody presence. 23,24 Additional serology for IgG to nucleocapsid protein was performed using the Abbott Architect i2000 chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (Abbott, Maidenhead, Abbott Architectsuggested: (Abbott ARCHITECT i1000sr System, RRID:SCR_018371)Abbottsuggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)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.
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.
-
