Changes in Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction–positive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Rates in Adults and Children According to the Epidemic Stages

  1. Corinne Levy
  2. Romain Basmaci
  3. Philippe Bensaid
  4. Cécile Bost Bru
  5. Edeline Coinde
  6. Emmanuelle Dessioux
  7. Cécile Fournial
  8. Jean Gashignard
  9. Hervé Haas
  10. Véronique Hentgen
  11. Frédéric Huet
  12. Muriel Lalande
  13. Alain Martinot
  14. Charlotte Pons
  15. Anne Sophie Romain
  16. Nicoleta Ursulescu
  17. François Vie Le Sage
  18. Josette Raymond
  19. Stéphane Béchet
  20. Julie Toubiana
  21. Robert Cohen

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

From March 2, 2020, to April 26, 2020, 52,588 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were performed in France, 6490 in children and 46,098 in adults. The rate of RT-PCR–positive SARS-CoV-2 tests for children (5.9%) was always less than that for adults (20.3%) but vary according to the epidemic stage. The risk ratio of RT-PCR–positive SARS-CoV-2 tests for adults compared with children was 3.5 (95% confidence interval: 3.2–3.9) for the whole study period.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1097/inf.0000000000002861
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.18.20098863: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of RT-PCR–positive SARS-CoV-2 tests for adults compared to children were calculated using Stata SE v13.1 (Statacorp, College Station, TX).
    Statacorp
    suggested: None

    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 study has several limitations. Our rates of RT-PCR–positive SARS-CoV-2 must take into account that RT-PCR practices were heterogeneous and could have evolved depending on the guidelines and the availability of the tests for adults and children. Even if we cannot rule out that some cases could have escaped our surveillance in our centers and that we did not survey the whole country, our results are consistent with the dynamic of the COVID-19 pandemic in France.6 Finally, the viral load was not available in our study for children and adults. We think that the surveillance of RT-PCR–positive tests in adults and children could be a simple and reliable tool to survey the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection, allowing to quickly detect any re-emergence of the disease.

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.18.20098863v2 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.18.20098863v1 on medRxiv