ArticleInternal medicine journal2021
Risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital employees in Italy: a single-centre study.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among healthcare workers: A cross-sectional study at a quaternary healthcare center in Saudi Arabia.Journal of infection and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 outbreak early in 2020 overwhelmed the Italian national health system, and hospitals were considered places at high risk of spreading the infection. We explored specific antibody seroprevalence of all employees at a single hospital in the epicentre of the outbreak, to identify areas of risk in nosocomial setting and to evaluate the usefulness of antibody testing.
aimsAim of this study was to explore SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in a single hospital workers cohort.
methodsAll hospital workers were invited to fill in a questionnaire and undergo a blood test for SARS-CoV-2 IgG, using two commercial tests (DiaSorin and Abbott). Seropositivity was determined overall and according to demographic and occupations characteristics, for both tests singly and combined.
resultsThe study enrolled 1562 hospital workers (95% of the eligible population). Overall, 153 (9.8%) participants were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG on DiaSorin test, and 150 (9.6%) were positive on Abbott test; both tests were positive in 123 (7.9%) cases and at least one was positive in 180 (11.5%) cases. Factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity included: being a smoker, working in emergency or medicine departments, being a healthcare practitioner, self-reporting a relative with COVID-19 or symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, and having undergone a nasopharyngeal swab test. The tests were accurate in discriminating infected cases, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.867 using manufacturer-suggested cut-offs and 0.929 using optimised cut-offs. For discriminating symptomatic subjects, this value was 0.915 using optimised cut-offs.
conclusionsSeroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 in this population of hospital workers was overall about 10%, with an excess prevalence in roles and departments associated with contacts with COVID-19 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.