The prevalence of adaptive immunity to COVID-19 and reinfection after recovery – a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. Tawanda Chivese
  2. Joshua T. Matizanadzo
  3. Omran A. H. Musa
  4. George Hindy
  5. Luis Furuya-Kanamori
  6. Nazmul Islam
  7. Rafal Al-Shebly
  8. Rana Shalaby
  9. Mohammad Habibullah
  10. Talal A. Al-Marwani
  11. Rizeq F. Hourani
  12. Ahmed D. Nawaz
  13. Mohammad Z. Haider
  14. Mohamed M. Emara
  15. Farhan Cyprian
  16. Suhail A. R. Doi

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 10.1080/20477724.2022.2029301
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.03.21263103v4 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.03.21263103v3 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.03.21263103: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    For each study we also extracted data on the type of test used to detect IgG, CD4+, CD8+ and memory B cells and which SARS-CoV-2 antigen (spike protein, spike RBD or nucleocapsid) the antibodies or cells were specific to.
    CD4+
    suggested: None
    CD8+
    suggested: None
    antigen (spike protein
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data sources and search methods for identification of studies: We searched for studies, without language restrictions, from 1 January 2020 till 1st of April 2021, the Web of Science Clarivate, the China Academic Journals Full Text Database, PubMed, Scopus, and the databases of preprints (https://www.medrxiv.org/ and https://www.biorxiv.org/).
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    For cellular immunity, studies were eligible if they used flow cytometry to measure proportions of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+, CD8+ and memory B cells.
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: (BioLegend Cat# 946101, RRID:AB_2892515)

    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:
    Our research has several limitations, one of which is that these findings cannot be extended beyond the time of follow up of the included studies. Although, it is highly likely that protective immunity goes beyond this time period, data from longitudinal cohorts with longer follow up times are required. Another limitation is the heterogeneity in the studies that we included which was not reduced by subgroup analyses in measurements methods and follow up times. Many of the longitudinal studies in this meta-analysis suffered from loss to follow up and this may have affected their findings. Further, although we included a comprehensive number of studies, studies on the cellular immune response are lacking and the ones we included had very small sample sizes, implying that our estimates of this aspect of the adaptive immune response may change with the accumulation of more data. Many of the included studies were small observational studies which are easily affected by confounding. Lastly, the review did not examine evidence for immunity against the new variants and did not include studies with longer follow up.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.03.21263103v2 on medRxiv
  6. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.03.21263103v1 on medRxiv