Serologic SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Healthcare Workers with Positive RT-PCR Test or Covid-19 Related Symptoms

  1. Giovanni Visci
  2. Vittorio Lodi
  3. Roberta Bonfiglioli
  4. Tiziana Lazzarotto
  5. Francesco S. Violante
  6. Paolo Boffetta.

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.25.20219113: (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

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Due to changes in the diagnostic methods over time, a subgroup of HCWs who tested negative at LFIA or CLIA, or not having been tested, underwent an ELISA test for detecting antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study suffers from several limitations. Data were collected during medical surveillance established in response to the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic during the spring of 2020, rather than within an ad hoc designed study. Furthermore, the protocol established for the surveillance of HCWs prevented us from analyzing the sensitivity of the ELISA test, that was mostly performed following a positive result based on LFIA. An additional limitation is that the current reference standard for SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmation, has a reported proportion of false negatives as low as 2% and as high as 37% according to the time of examination with respect to symptoms, if any [20]. In addition to the large sample size, strengths of the study include the fact that the same tests were consistently used for all HCWs, and analyzed in a single laboratory. Furthermore, data on potential determinants of serological results were collected before the results of the tests were known, suggesting that any misclassification was likely to be non-differential and lead to an underestimate of the associations. Testing plays a vital role in the clinical management of Covid–19; in particular among high-risk groups such as HCWs, and the availability of serologic assays to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 provide us additional tools in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Our results add substantially to the available data on sensitivity of serologic LFIA and CLIA tests and on determinants of serologi...

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.26502/acbr.501700177
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.25.20219113v1 on medRxiv