Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of workers from the University of Porto, Portugal
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.14.21264980: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Participants provided written informed consent to all procedures.
IRB: The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Institute of Public Health of the University of Porto (ID 20154) and all procedures complied with the principles embodied in the Declaration of Helsinki.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Porto were invited to participate in two serological surveys using a point of care test for SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG antibodies. IgGsuggested: NoneSARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG antibodies determination and follow-up: During the first … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.14.21264980: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Participants provided written informed consent to all procedures.
IRB: The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Institute of Public Health of the University of Porto (ID 20154) and all procedures complied with the principles embodied in the Declaration of Helsinki.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Porto were invited to participate in two serological surveys using a point of care test for SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG antibodies. IgGsuggested: NoneSARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG antibodies determination and follow-up: During the first evaluation two point-of-care tests were used – the STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Duo used from May 21 to July 9, n=3040 (manufacturer reported sensitivity of 92.6% eight days after symptom onset and specificity of 96.5% for both IgG and IgM); and the STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Combo from July 10 to July 31, n=588 (manufacturer reported sensitivity of 94.5% seven or more days after symptom onset and specificity of 95.7% for both IgG and IgM). SARS-CoV-2 specific IgMsuggested: NoneIgG antibodies determinationsuggested: (RevMAb Biosciences Cat# 31-1255-00, RRID:AB_2783608)IgMsuggested: NoneSoftware and Algorithms Sentences Resources Analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)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:This study has some limitations, as workers were self-selected, and the invitation was sent by e-mail. We sought symptoms, contacts, and episodes of quarantine since January 2020; they all were self-reported, but these questions are not expected to be prone to social desirability. However, as SARS-CoV-2 infection symptoms are unspecific they may be prone to recall bias. We completed the questionnaire before sharing the serological results with the participants, to avoid contamination by the rapid test result. This study is one of the few internationally focusing on higher education workers, a work environment where infection awareness is expected to be very high, and one of the few with a longitudinal approach. To conclude, we found that university workers, in Porto, presented a high incidence rate of infection during a period of restrictive measures (2 infections per 100 person-month and a 6 months’ cumulative incidence of 10.7%), with the incidence being lower in males and “high-skilled white-collar” workers. The frequency of infection based on the serological tests was much higher than based on molecular diagnosis data, although it decreased over time reflecting wider access to testing. Nonetheless, these results stress that we still miss opportunities to test-trace-isolate persons with the infection, particularly those with symptoms but no known contacts, even in a work environment where infection awareness is expected to be very high.
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.
-
