ArticleBMJ open2021
Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers in a large teaching hospital in the North West of England: a period prevalence survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Risk and protective factors for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers: A test-negative case-control study in Québec, Canada.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
- Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, intensive care admission, and death: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 200 million study participants.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Cost-Benefit of Real-Time Multiplex PCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2 in German Hospitals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Ethnicity and risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among the healthcare workforce: Results of a retrospective cohort study in rural United Kingdom.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Seroepidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare personnel working at the largest tertiary COVID-19 referral hospitals in Mexico City.PloS one · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among healthcare workers from a tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2021Article
- Impact of Two Different Recruitment Procedures (Random vs. Volunteer Selection) on the Results of Seroepidemiological Study (SARS-CoV-2).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSince its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global pandemic that has significantly challenged healthcare systems. Healthcare workers have previously been shown to have experienced higher rates of infection than the general population. We aimed to assess the extent of infection in staff working in our healthcare setting.
designA retrospective analysis of antibody results, compared with staff demographic data, and exposure to patients with COVID-19 infection.
settingA large teaching hospital in the North West of England.
participants4474 staff in diverse clinical and non-patient facing roles who volunteered for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing by the Roche Elecsys assay between 29 May and 4 July 2020.
resultsSeroprevalence was 17.4%. Higher rates were seen in Asian/Asian British (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.04) and Black/Black British (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.45) staff. Staff working in any clinical location were more likely to be seropositive (OR 2.68, 95% 2.27 to 3.15). Staff were at an increased risk of seropositivity as the 'per 100 COVID-19 bed-days change' increased in the clinical area in which they worked (OR 1.12, 95% 1.10 to 1.14). Staff working in critical care were no more likely to have detectable antibodies than staff working in non-clinical areas. Symptoms compatible with COVID-19 were reported in 41.8% and antibodies were detected in 30.7% of these individuals. In staff who reported no symptoms, antibodies were detected in 7.7%. In all staff who had detectable antibodies, 25.2% reported no symptoms.
conclusionsStaff working in clinical areas where patients with COVID-19 were nursed were more likely to have detectable antibodies. The relationship between seropositivity in healthcare workers and the increase in 'per 100 COVID-19 bed-days' of the area in which they worked, although statistically significant, was weak, suggesting other contributing factors to the risk profile. Of staff with detectable antibodies and therefore evidence of prior infection, a quarter self-reported that they had experienced no compatible symptoms. This has implications for potential unrecorded transmission in both staff and patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.