Retrospective assessment of SARS-COV2 circulation in two hospital nurseries hosting healthcare workers’ children during lockdown in one of the most affected French area s
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
Evidence as to whether childcare and school closure limits the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus is limited, especially because the role of children in SARS-CoV2 transmission remains unclear.
Methods
Between May 29 and July 2, 2020, a retrospective cohort study was conducted among two populations: requisitioned health-care workers and requisitioned staff from hospitals childcare centers, to investigate the virus circulation during lockdown, in a French area of high transmission.
Results
The infection attack rate was 6/52 (11.6%) and 8/46 (17.4%) among health-care workers and childcare staff, respectively. An early epidemic occurred among Montreuil s hospital childcare staff, but the parents were not affected (p=0.029). Among Aulnay-sous-bois childcare center, three staff members were infected but none of them was in charge of a child whose parents were infected. Also among the parents of the children they cared for, none developed antibodies. Out of 14 infections, 12 were reliable to a source of transmission, mostly among colleagues.
Discussion-conclusion
The assessment of viral circulation among healthcare workers and childcare staff suggests that the children did not contribute to SARS-CoV-2 spread in our setting.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.28.20191981: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.28.20191981: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: 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.
-
