Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32791199›Full record

ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2020

Protocol for a national probability survey using home specimen collection methods to assess prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and antibody response.

Aaron J Siegler, Patrick S Sullivan, Travis Sanchez, Ben Lopman, Mansour Fahimi, Charles Sailey, Martin Frankel, Richard Rothenberg, Colleen F Kelley, Heather Bradley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Aaron J SieglerDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: asiegle@emory.edu.
Patrick S SullivanDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA.
Travis SanchezDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA.
Ben LopmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA.
Mansour FahimiMarketing Systems Group, Philadelphia, PA.
Charles SaileyMolecular Testing Laboratories, Vancouver, WA.
Martin FrankelZicklin School of Business, Baruch College, New York City, NY.
Richard RothenbergDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Colleen F KelleyDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Heather BradleyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

Funding

Population-based survey of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune responseR01AI143875 · NIAID · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI SIEGLER, AARON JULIUS, SULLIVAN, PATRICK SEAN · 2019 to 2023
$9.2M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI143875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe U.S. response to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has been hampered by early and ongoing delays in testing for infection; without data on where infections were occurring and the magnitude of the epidemic, early public health responses were not data-driven. Understanding the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections and immune response is critical to developing and implementing effective public health responses. Most serological surveys have been limited to localities that opted to conduct them and/or were based on convenience samples. Moreover, results of antibody testing might be subject to high false positive rates in the setting of low prevalence of immune response and imperfect test specificity.

methodsWe will conduct a national serosurvey for SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity and immune experience. A probability sample of U.S. addresses will be mailed invitations and kits for the self-collection of anterior nares swab and finger prick dried blood spot specimens. Within each sampled household, one adult 18 years or older will be randomly selected and asked to complete a questionnaire and to collect and return biological specimens to a central laboratory. Nasal swab specimens will be tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RNA PCR; dried blood spot specimens will be tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., immune experience) by enzyme-linked immunoassays. Positive screening tests for antibodies will be confirmed by a second antibody test with different antigenic basis to improve predictive value of positive (PPV) antibody test results. All persons returning specimens in the baseline phase will be enrolled into a follow-up cohort and mailed additional specimen collection kits 3 months after baseline. A subset of 10% of selected households will be invited to participate in full household testing, with tests offered for all household members aged ≥3 years. The main study outcomes will be period prevalence of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and immune experience, and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and antibody responses.

resultsPower calculations indicate that a national sample of 4000 households will facilitate estimation of national SARS-CoV-2 infection and antibody prevalence with acceptably narrow 95% confidence intervals across several possible scenarios of prevalence levels. Oversampling in up to seven populous states will allow for prevalence estimation among subpopulations. Our 2-stage algorithm for antibody testing produces acceptable PPV at prevalence levels ≥1.0%. Including oversamples in states, we expect to receive data from as many as 9156 participants in 7495 U.S. households.

conclusionsIn addition to providing robust estimates of prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune experience, we anticipate this study will establish a replicable methodology for home-based SARS-CoV-2 testing surveys, address concerns about selection bias, and improve positive predictive value of serology results. Prevalence estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune experience produced by this study will greatly improve our understanding of the spectrum of COVID-19 disease, its current penetration in various demographic, geographic, and occupational groups, and inform the range of symptoms associated with infection. These data will inform resource needs for control of the ongoing epidemic and facilitate data-driven decisions for epidemic mitigation strategies.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusClinical Laboratory TechniquesClinical Trial Protocols as TopicCoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingDisease OutbreaksHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2RNA, ViralPCR testingProbability sampling methodsSARS-CoV-2 infectionSARS-CoV-2 serologySerology

Identifiers

PMID32791199
PMCPMC7417272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.