Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

16.8 million SARS-CoV-2 infections in the US went undiagnosed in the first 6 months of the pandemic compared to 3.5 million diagnosed infections.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.27.21250570: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Participants across the US (all 50 states and DC) were then enrolled via telephone consent from a pool of volunteers who provided basic demographic data in response to the study announcement.
    IRB: This study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04334954) was approved by the National Institutes of Health Institutional Review Board and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines.
    RandomizationFor each day’s call list, the most representative of 20,000 randomly generated lists was used, each list drawn without replacement from the volunteer pool based on the sampling probabilities previously defined.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Study Protocol: This study was designed to determine the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in adults 18 years of age or older in the United States who had not been previously diagnosed with COVID-19.
    anti-SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Selected participants were contacted by the study team, consented, and sent a blood microsampling kit and online questionnaire in REDCap (project-redcap.org).
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    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:
    Limitations: Although we were able to recruit a cohort with demographics representative of the general US population, our study has several limitations. First, although extensive statistical adjustments were made, our study cohort is based on a non-random volunteer sample which can have selection bias. However, many traditional random sampling studies using probability sampling design have very low response rates, calling into question the advantages of that practice38,39. Our study population also exhibited some differences from the general US population, such as higher education level and access to healthcare that had to be adjusted for with statistical weighting. We utilized both census and behavioral data to weight our results though it is possible that there are variables associated with disease transmission that are not accounted for in our weighting.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04334954Active, not recruitingSARS-COV2 Pandemic Serosurvey and Blood Sampling


    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.