Protocol for rapid implementation of a SARS-CoV-2 sero-survey during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic – who, where, how?

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Introduction

The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had devastating consequences in the US, yet clinical research on its natural history and transmission outside hospitalized settings has faced tangible and intangible challenges due to uncertainty in testing, case ascertainment, and appropriate safety measures. To better understand temporal evolution of COVID-19 related serological and other immune responses during a pandemic, we designed and implemented a baseline cross-sectional study of asymptomatic community volunteers and first responders in metro-Atlanta before the predicted infection peak in 2020.

Methods

We recruited healthy community volunteers and first responders for health history, serology, and biobanking. Through an iterative process, we identified one location on our campus and one community location which were accessible, vacant, distant from COVID-19 testing sites, open for social distancing, private for informed consent, and operational for sanitation and ventilation. Research and cleaning supplies were obtained from other researchers and private online vendors due to shortages, and faculty directly participated in consenting and phlebotomy.

Results

A total of 369 participants completed the study visits over six full and three half days. Over half of Phase 1 (174/299, 58.2%) and Phase 2 (45/70, 64.3%) self-reported as healthcare workers, and there was a high percentage of participants reporting exposure to known COVID-19 cases (48.2% and 61.4%).

Conclusions

Rigorous prospective clinical research with informed consents and is possible during a pandemic. Effective recruitment for moderately large sample size is facilitated by direct faculty involvement, connections with the community, and non-financial support from colleagues and the institution.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.08.21251348: (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: 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.