Probability-Based Estimates of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Seroprevalence and Detection Fraction, Utah, USA

  1. Matthew H. Samore
  2. Adam Looney
  3. Brian Orleans
  4. Tom Greene
  5. Nathan Seegert
  6. Julio C. Delgado
  7. Angela Presson
  8. Chong Zhang
  9. Jian Ying
  10. Yue Zhang
  11. Jincheng Shen
  12. Patricia Slev
  13. Maclean Gaulin
  14. Mu-Jeung Yang
  15. Andrew T. Pavia
  16. Stephen C. Alder

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

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 10.3201/eid2711.204435
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.26.20219907: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Statistical methods: This surveillance project was designated by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board as non-research.
    RandomizationOur primary sampling design included 11,563 addresses that were selected by randomly choosing 26 of the tract groups from the 15 strata, weighted by tract group population.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Laboratory methods: Serum specimens were analyzed using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay performed on an Abbott Architect i2000 instrument (Abbott Laboratories), according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
    Abbott Architect
    suggested: (Abbott ARCHITECT i1000sr System, RRID:SCR_019328)
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Several limitations are important to acknowledge. This paper covers the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through mid-June. An updated analysis is needed to examine the secular trend in seroprevalence and determine whether the detection fraction continues to be high. Additional data will also enhance the feasibility of examining hot spots that may be geographically localized. Our analysis is not able to fully account for all sources of bias, particularly those factors that influenced the decision to participate at the household level. In summary, we employed a project design where i) all participants were randomly selected; ii) antibodies were detected with a highly specific assay; iii) rigorous analytical methods were applied to account for bias and test error; and iv) population-level inferences were supported by analysis of survey responses. The most distinctive finding in our analysis was that the estimated total-to-reported case ratio was only 2.4, corresponding to a detection fraction of 42%. Further analysis is needed to determine whether this pattern has continued to hold up in subsequent months and to further assess the factors that influence SARS-CoV-2 transmission and detection.

    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 10.1101/2020.10.26.20219907 on medRxiv