Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33173854›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2020

High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in care homes affected by COVID-19: Prospective cohort study, England.

Shamez N Ladhani, Anna Jeffery-Smith, Monika Patel, Roshni Janarthanan, Jonathan Fok, Emma Crawley-Boevey, Amoolya Vusirikala, Elena Fernandez Ruiz De Olano, Marina Sanchez Perez, Suzanne Tang and 18 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

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

28 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shamez N LadhaniImmunisation and Countermeasures Division, Public Health England, London, UK.
Anna Jeffery-SmithVirus Reference Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
Monika PatelVirus Reference Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
Roshni JanarthananLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Jonathan FokLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Emma Crawley-BoeveyLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Amoolya VusirikalaLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Elena Fernandez Ruiz De OlanoLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Marina Sanchez PerezLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Suzanne TangLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Kate Dun-CampbellLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Edward Wynne- EvansLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Anita BellLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Bharat PatelLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Zahin Amin-ChowdhuryImmunisation and Countermeasures Division, Public Health England, London, UK.
Felicity AianoImmunisation and Countermeasures Division, Public Health England, London, UK.
Karthik ParanthamanField Service, National Infection Service, Public Health England, UK.
Thomas MaField Service, National Infection Service, Public Health England, UK.
Maria Saavedra-CamposField Service, National Infection Service, Public Health England, UK.
Joanna EllisVirus Reference Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
Meera ChandAntimicrobial Resistance and Hospital Acquired Infection Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
Kevin BrownVirus Reference Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
Mary E RamsayImmunisation and Countermeasures Division, Public Health England, London, UK.
Susan HopkinsAntimicrobial Resistance and Hospital Acquired Infection Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
Nandini ShettyVirus Reference Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
J Yimmy ChowLondon Health Protection Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Robin GopalVirus Reference Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
Maria ZambonVirus Reference Department, Public Health England, London, UK.
Public Health England · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigated six London care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak and found high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff. Here we report follow-up investigations including antibody testing in the same care homes five weeks later.

methodsResidents and staff in the initial investigation had a repeat nasal swab for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and a blood test for SARS CoV-2 antibodies using ELISA based on SARS-CoV-2 native viral antigens derived from infected cells and virus neutralisation.

findingsOf the 518 residents and staff in the initial investigation, 186/241 (77.2%) surviving residents and 208/254 (81.9%) staff underwent serological testing. Almost all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive residents and staff were seropositive five weeks later, whether symptomatic (residents 35/35, 100%; staff, 22/22, 100%) or asymptomatic (residents 32/33, 97.0%; staff 21/22, 95.5%). Symptomatic but SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative residents and staff also had high seropositivity rates (residents 23/27, 85.2%; staff 18/21, 85.7%), as did asymptomatic RT-PCR negative individuals (residents 61/91, 67.0%; staff 95/143, 66.4%). Neutralising antibody was detected in 118/132 (89.4%) seropositive individuals and was not associated with age or symptoms. Ten residents (10/79 re-tested, 12.7%) remained RT-PCR positive but with higher RT-PCR cycle threshold values; 7/10 had serological testing and all were seropositive. New infections were detected in three residents and one staff.

interpretationRT-PCR provides a point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection but significantly underestimates total exposure in outbreak settings. In care homes experiencing large COVID-19 outbreaks, most residents and staff had neutralising SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which was not associated with age or symptoms.

fundingPHE.

Identifiers

PMID33173854
PMCPMC7644437
OpenAlexW3095037764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.