Mass Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Residents and Staff in Twenty-eight Long-term Care Facilities in Fulton County, Georgia

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Mass screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in long-term care facilities revealed significantly higher prevalence of infection in facilities that screened in response to a known infection compared to those that screened as a prevention measure. “Response” facilities had a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 28.9% while “preventive” facilities’ prevalence was 1.6% (p <0.001).

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.01.20144162: (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

    No key resources detected.


    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:
    One limitation of this study is that LTCFs were screened based on reports of COVID-19 infections or requests by the facilities and were not selected at random to provide a representative sample. Nonetheless, these facilities represent 48% of licensed LTCFs and 44% of the total bed capacity in Fulton County [13]. Due to low testing capacity in the early phase of the COVID response, most LTCFs screened early in the study period (April) were those with a known case (Response Group). Preemptive screening began in May when testing capacity increased with the addition of the National Guard to the COVID-19 screening efforts. While typical case investigations for COVID-19 require contacting individuals directly, we were unable to contact COVID-19 positive residents of LTCFs to obtain epidemiologic details such as the date of onset of symptoms or potential close contacts; we relied heavily on LTCFs to assist us in completing individual case investigations. Census lists provided by LTCFs and case reports from hospitals and medical examiners assisted in the identification and retroactive linkage of cases in residents and staff that were not reported by LTCFs and their subsequent inclusion in this analysis. Lastly, there may be several unmeasured factors that could account for differences between the LTCF groups, such as resident to staff ratio, resident and staff adherence to IPC measures, prevalence of comorbid conditions especially among residents, facility airflow design and maintena...

    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.