Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33493185›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

Madhumita Shrotri, May C I van Schalkwyk, Nathan Post, Danielle Eddy, Catherine Huntley, David Leeman, Samuel Rigby, Sarah V Williams, William H Bermingham, Paul Kellam and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Performance of the Roche Elecsys® IGRA SARS-CoV-2 test for the detection and quantification of virus-reactive T cells in COVID-19-vaccinated immunosuppressed patients and healthy subjects.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors.

Madhumita ShrotriFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
May C I van SchalkwykDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Nathan PostFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Danielle EddyNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Catherine HuntleyFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
David LeemanNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2517-1474
Samuel RigbyFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sarah V WilliamsFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
William H BerminghamDepartment of Clinical Immunology, University Hospitals Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2213-5574
Paul KellamDepartment of Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
John MaherSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Studies, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Adrian M ShieldsClinical Immunology Service, Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Gayatri AmirthalingamNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Sharon J PeacockNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Sharif A IsmailNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7246-7337

Funding

Wellcome Trust 215654/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 is critical to vaccine development, epidemiological surveillance and disease control strategies. This systematic review critically evaluates and synthesises the relevant peer-reviewed and pre-print literature published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020.

methodsFor this systematic review, keyword-structured literature searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Papers were independently screened by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements by a third researcher. Data were independently extracted into a pre-designed Excel template and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the MetaQAT tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised.

results61 articles were included. 55 (90%) studies used observational designs, 50 (82%) involved hospitalised patients with higher acuity illness, and the majority had important limitations. Symptomatic adult COVID-19 cases consistently show peripheral T cell lymphopenia, which positively correlates with increased disease severity, duration of RNA positivity, and non-survival; while asymptomatic and paediatric cases display preserved counts. People with severe or critical disease generally develop more robust, virus-specific T cell responses. T cell memory and effector function has been demonstrated against multiple viral epitopes, and, cross-reactive T cell responses have been demonstrated in unexposed and uninfected adults, but the significance for protection and susceptibility, respectively, remains unclear.

conclusionA complex pattern of T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection has been demonstrated, but inferences regarding population level immunity are hampered by significant methodological limitations and heterogeneity between studies, as well as a striking lack of research in asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic individuals. In contrast to antibody responses, population-level surveillance of the T cell response is unlikely to be feasible in the near term. Focused evaluation in specific sub-groups, including vaccine recipients, should be prioritised.

Indexed as

COVID-19Host-Pathogen InteractionsHumansImmunity, CellularLymphopeniaSARS-CoV-2T-Lymphocytes

Identifiers

PMID33493185
PMCPMC7833159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.