Infection Control Measures and Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG among 4,554 University Hospital Employees, Munich, Germany
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.04.20206136: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: Upon obtaining written informed consent, including the use of personal information for research, demographic data; chronic medical conditions; occupation; work location; use of PPE; exposure to SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, co-workers, or private contacts; symptom history; previous PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and outcome were acquired by a standardised electronic questionnaire (S2 Appendix).
IRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine (approval number: 216/20S).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.04.20206136: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: Upon obtaining written informed consent, including the use of personal information for research, demographic data; chronic medical conditions; occupation; work location; use of PPE; exposure to SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, co-workers, or private contacts; symptom history; previous PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and outcome were acquired by a standardised electronic questionnaire (S2 Appendix).
IRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine (approval number: 216/20S).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources Laboratory analysis: Primary detection of serum IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 S1 or N protein was performed using a paramagnetic particle chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) on an iFlash 1800 immunoassay analyser (Shenzhen Yhlo Biotech Co., Shenzhen, China). SARS-CoV-2suggested: NoneS1suggested: NoneFor confirmation, total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 N protein were determined using an electrochemiluminescent immunoassay (ECLIA) on a Cobas e411 analyser (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany). SARS-CoV-2 N proteinsuggested: (ABclonal Cat# A20021, RRID:AB_2862924)In all samples with incongruent results, IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein were determined using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Euroimmun, Luebeck, Germany), and immunoblot was used to differentiate antibodies against N, S1 and the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 from those against seasonal coronaviruses (Mikrogen, Neuried, Germany) (S3 SARS-CoV-2 S1 proteinsuggested: NoneSoftware and Algorithms Sentences Resources Nucleic acids were extracted from nasopharyngeal swabs using the mSample Preparation System DNA kit following a standard protocol on an m2000sp device for RNA and DNA extraction (Abbott, Wiesbaden, Germany) and subjected to SARS-CoV-2 PCR using oligo-dT for reverse transcription and N1 and N3 primer and probe sets for detection according to the protocol of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA Abbottsuggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:The current study has several limitations. First, because this was a voluntary assessment, participation was incomplete and may have biased the results. We cannot exclude the possibility that staff members with a higher perceived risk of infection were more likely to participate. Furthermore, as most students stayed at home during lock-down, their participation rate was low. Second, symptoms and exposures were retrospectively assessed and self-reported and thus subject to a recall bias. Third, although we attempted a cross-sectional analysis, our data documents the average seroprevalence during the entire testing period; thus, seroconversions occurring during this period may have been missed. Finally, PCR testing results were only available from individuals who consented to their use (4373/4554), limiting the possibility of cross-validating PCR results with seroprevalence. Altogether, our findings have several important implications. We did not observe a relevant increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody seropositivity in HCW (including those working with COVID-19 patients) compared to staff who were not directly involved in patient care as long as PPE was used. Importantly, interaction with SARS-CoV-2 infected co-workers and/or private contacts was a major risk factor for infection. Among the symptoms reported, loss of smell and taste were strongly indicative of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, almost two-thirds of seropositive individuals detected in this cross-sectional study...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
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.
-
