The SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Students in the University of Porto: A Cross-Sectional Study

  1. Paula Meireles
  2. Joana Pinto Costa
  3. Maria João Novais
  4. Daniela Miranda
  5. Mariana Mendes Lopes
  6. Milton Severo
  7. Henrique Barros

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to quantify SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies’ seroprevalence among university students in Porto.

Methods: A rapid point of care testing for SARS-CoV-2 specific immunoglobulin (Ig) M and IgG antibodies was performed, and a questionnaire was applied to 6512 voluntary students from September to December 2020. We computed the apparent IgM, IgG, and IgM or IgG prevalence, and the true prevalence and 95% credible intervals (95% CI) using Bayesian inference.

Results: We found an apparent prevalence (IgM or IgG) of 9.7%, the true prevalence being 7.9% (95% CI 4.9–11.1). Prevalence was significantly higher among males (10.9% vs. 9.2%), international students (18.1% vs. 10.4% local vs. 8.8% nationally displaced), and increased with age. Those with a known risk contact, that experienced quarantine, had symptoms, or a previous negative molecular test had a higher seroprevalence. Of the 91 (1.4%) students who reported a molecular diagnosis, 86.8% were reactive for IgM or IgG.

Conclusion: Based on immunological evidence infection was 5.6-fold the reported molecular diagnosis. The higher seroprevalence among male, older, and international students emphasizes the importance of identifying particular groups.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604548
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.14.21264978: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Institute of Public Health of the University of Porto (ID 20154).
    Consent: Verbal informed consent was obtained prior to the interview.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Porto were sent an email by the University communication office to invite them to perform a rapid serological test for SARS-CoV-2 specific immunoglobulin (Ig) M and IgG antibodies.
    IgG
    suggested: None
    SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG antibodies determination: Three point-of-care tests were used according to the manufacturer instructions – the STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Combo (manufacturer reported sensitivity of 94.5% seven or more days after symptom onset and specificity of 95.7% for both IgG and IgM), the HIGHTOP - SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Test Combo (manufacturer reported sensitivity of 82.0% and 93.0% and specificity of 96.0% and 97.5% for IgM and IgG, respectively), and the Teste Rápido Pantest de Coronavirus 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM (manufacturer reported sensitivity of 85.0% and 100% and specificity of 96.0% and 98.0% for IgM and IgG, respectively).
    SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM
    suggested: None
    IgG antibodies
    suggested: None

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.10.14.21264978v1 on medRxiv