The King’s College London Coronavirus Health and Experiences of Colleagues at King’s Study: SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in an occupational sample

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

We report test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in an occupational group of postgraduate research students and current members of staff at King’s College London. Between June and July 2020, antibody testing kits were sent to n = 2296 participants; n = 2004 (86.3%) responded, of whom n = 1882 (93.9%) returned valid test results. Of those that returned valid results, n = 124 (6.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with initial comparisons showing variation by age group and clinical exposure.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.10.20191841: (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

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    A Rapid Immunoglobulin Test Cassette was used to detect the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies to the ‘spike’ protein, thereby providing evidence for previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. SureScreen Diagnostics COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassettes, the necessary equipment and detailed instructions were sent to participants’ home address.
    IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: Statistical analysis was performed in STATA 16.0.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.