Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 wastewater surveillance for detection of COVID-19 at a residential private college
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Many colleges and universities utilized wastewater surveillance testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA as a tool to help monitor and mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic on campuses across the USA during the 2020–2021 academic year. We sought to assess the efficacy of one such program by analyzing data on relative wastewater RNA levels from residential buildings in relation to SARS-CoV-2 cases identified through individual surveillance testing, conducted largely independent of wastewater results. Almost 80% of the cases on campus were associated with positive wastewater tests, resulting in an overall positive predictive value of 79% (Chi square 48.1, Df = 1, P < 0.001). However, half of the positive wastewater samples occurred in the two weeks following the return of a student to the residence hall following the 10-day isolation period, and therefore were not useful in predicting new infections. When these samples were excluded, the positive predictive value of a positive wastewater sample was 54%. Overall, we conclude that the continued shedding of viral RNA by patients past the time of potential transmission confounds the identification of new cases using wastewater surveillance, and decreases its effectiveness in managing SARS-CoV-2 infections on a residential college campus.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.15.21263338: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: This project was ruled as exempt from the review process by the Colgate University Institutional Review Board. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Following quarantine, the whole campus population (students and employees) were randomly selected for surveillance testing at a rate of 6% of each residence hall/area or campus employee population per week (fall semester), or scheduled for surveillance testing once every 2 weeks (spring semester). Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data was analyzed using GraphPad Prism statistical software package as indicated. GraphPad Prismsuggested: (GraphPad Prism, …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.15.21263338: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: This project was ruled as exempt from the review process by the Colgate University Institutional Review Board. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Following quarantine, the whole campus population (students and employees) were randomly selected for surveillance testing at a rate of 6% of each residence hall/area or campus employee population per week (fall semester), or scheduled for surveillance testing once every 2 weeks (spring semester). Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data was analyzed using GraphPad Prism statistical software package as indicated. GraphPad Prismsuggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:One limitation of the study is that, due to the layout of campus infrastructure, several of the sample collection points did not only capture waste from student residences. In some cases, other campus buildings contributed to the waste stream (though every effort was made to minimize this), whereas in other cases, the residence halls also house additional administrative or classroom spaces. Additionally, custodial and facilities maintenance staff routinely accessed the buildings and may have contributed to the waste stream at the sampling locations. In one instance in the fall semester, a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA signal in a wastewater sample was used to guide targeted PCR-based testing of students in residences, which did not identify any positive student cases. Concurrently, however, an employee that spent time in the space(s) contributing to that waste stream did test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, although whether they used restroom facilities in those location(s) is not known. Therefore, it is possible that other positive wastewater samples that did not coincide with a positive case may not be “false positives,” per se, but rather reflect other non-residents that contributed to the waste stream. It is also possible that these positive wastewater samples reflect infected students that were not identified by individual surveillance testing, either because they were not tested during their infection or their test results were falsely negative. There are several additiona...
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.
-
