A population-based seroprevalence survey of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Beijing, China

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

BACKGOUND

The spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been controlled in China. The seroprevalence of COVID-19 in Beijing has not been evaluated.

METHODS

In April, residents in Beijing were randomly enrolled. Blood samples were collected and antibodies to SARS- CoV-2 were tested by two colloidal gold kits. All colloidal gold positive serums were then tested by Micro- neutralization assay.

RESULTS

None of 2,184 residents participated was tested positive by micro-neutralization assay. The seroprevalence of COVID-19 in Beijing was estimated < 0.17%.

CONCLUSIONS

The seroprevalence of COVID-19 was low in April suggesting that community-wide spread was prevented in Beijing.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.23.20197756: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: For child <18 yrs, consent had been obtained from his/her legal guardian.
    RandomizationFive communities in each district and certain households in each community were randomly selected based on Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) at two stages respectively.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    The diluted serums were mixed with a virus suspension of 100 TCID50 (50 tissue culture infective dose) in 96-well plates at a ratio of 1:1, followed by 2 hours incubation at 36.5°C in a 5% CO2 incubator. 1-2×104 Vero cells were then added to the serum-virus mixture, and the plates were incubated for 5 days at 36.5°C in a 5% CO2 incubator.
    Vero
    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. One of the main limitations is the performance of test kits. According to the manufacturer, the two test kits were both used for the additional testing for suspected case with negative PCR, which indicated that they are unsuitable for general population screening. Although none was positive in neutralization assay among these 13 seropositive samples and 20 randomly selected seronegative samples, we could not preclude the possibility of false negativity since the neutralization assay was conducted only in targeted part of residents. Despite the acceptable sensitivity of the two colloidal gold methods provided by the manufacturers, Döhla et al. found that antibo dy-based rapid test showed low sensitivity (36.4%) in high-prevalence community setting. They recommended not to rely on an antibody-based rapid test for public health measures such as community screenings [15]. Considering that the sample sizes of patients and controls in our validation were limited, we used test performance data in manufacturer instructions to establish the test’s sensitivity and specificity [2]. Additional validation of the assays especially in general populations used could improve further our estimates. The availability of other high-quality serological testing kits suitable for general population screening was expected. Inadequate sample size and one-time cross-sectional study performed were also needed to be considered. Given the low seroprevalence in Beijing, l...

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.