Sources of healthcare workers’ COVID‑19 infections and related safety guidelines

  1. Lotta-Maria Oksanen
  2. Enni Sanmark
  3. Sampo Oksanen
  4. Veli-Jukka Anttila
  5. Jussi Paterno
  6. Maija Lappalainen
  7. Lasse Lehtonen
  8. Ahmed Geneid

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01741
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.17.20176842: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Ethical considerations: All procedures that involved human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional or national research committee and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
    IRB: The Ethics Committee of Helsinki University Hospital approved the study protocol (HUS/1760/2016).
    Consent: All responders provided written informed consent prior to their participation.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisThe minimum study size of 366 was calculated by N95 respirators statistical power calculation.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Participants’ medical history was reviewed in July 2020 for COVID-19 RT-PCR and antibody results.
    COVID-19
    suggested: None
    Our study design was established on questionnaires, RT-PCR, and antibody testing, that were aimed at HUS’ HCWs and required strong identification for enrolment.
    RT-PCR
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: The statistical analysis was performed using statistical software (IBM SPSS Statistics 25, Chicago, USA).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    Strengths and weaknesses of this study: This is the first study to analyse the impact of using surgical masks vs FFP2/3 respirators in HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The masks and respirators were tested by the employer before usage, and the availability of masks was good during the whole study. The positive COVID-19 infections were proven by COVID-19 RT-PCR and antibody tests, which are the gold standard in COVID-19 diagnostics32. The study was conducted prospectively during the COVID-19 pandemic, and all of the nurses and doctors working at HUS were informed about the study. Of those that opted to participate, 95% stated that they have followed the state restrictions. These factors, combined with the low density of 176/km² in Uusimaa, greatly reduce the likelihood of non-occupational infections of HCWs and hence increase the reliability of analysis on workplace-related infections. It could be argued that the high infection rate of HCWs is due to their more extensive testing. However, the guidelines in Finland have been to test everyone with matching symptoms through universal healthcare. Although the testing HCWs has been prioritised, the testing capacity has been sufficient during most of the first wave, leaving only a limited number of potential symptomatic COVID-19–infected non-HCWs without diagnosis; thus, testing cannot explain the major difference in infection rates. The characteristics of the participants reflect the overall personnel, although females are slight...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.17.20176842 on medRxiv