Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33941453›Full record

ArticleClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))2021

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Antibody Seroprevalence among UK Healthcare Professionals Working with Cancer Patients during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

D M Favara, K McAdam, A Cooke, A Bordessa-Kelly, I Budriunaite, S Bossingham, S Houghton, R Doffinger, N Ainsworth, P G Corrie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

D M FavaraDepartment of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; Department of Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, Kings Lynn, UK; Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: df411@cam.ac.uk.
K McAdamDepartment of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; Department of Oncology, Peterborough City Hospital, North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, UK.
A CookeCambridge Clinical Laboratories, Cambridge, UK.
A Bordessa-KellySchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
I BudriunaiteTissue Typing Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
S BossinghamTissue Typing Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
S HoughtonDepartment of Immunology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
R DoffingerDepartment of Immunology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
N AinsworthDepartment of Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, Kings Lynn, UK.
P G CorrieDepartment of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe proportion of UK oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroprevalence rates among HCPs. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatient-facing oncology HCPs working at three large UK hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody testing [Luminex and point-of-care (POC) tests] on two occasions 28 days apart (June-July 2020).

resultsIn total, 434 HCPs were recruited: nurses (58.3%), doctors (21.2%), radiographers (10.4%), administrators (10.1%); 26.3% reported prior symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2. All participants were PCR negative during the study, but 18.4% were Luminex seropositive on day 1, of whom 42.5% were POC seropositive. Nurses had the highest seropositive prevalence trend (21.3%, P = 0.2). Thirty-eight per cent of seropositive HCPs reported previous SARS-CoV-2 symptoms: 1.9 times higher odds than seronegative HCPs (P = 0.01). Of 400 participants retested on day 28, 13.3% were Luminex seropositive (92.5% previously, 7.5% newly). Thirty-two per cent of initially seropositive HCPs were seronegative on day 28.

conclusionIn this large cohort of PCR-negative patient-facing oncology HCPs, almost one in five were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive at the start of the pandemic's first wave. Our findings that one in three seropositive HCPs retested 28 days later became seronegative support regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing until widespread immunity is achieved by effective vaccination.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health PersonnelNeoplasmsAdultAgedDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Seroepidemiologic StudiesUnited KingdomYoung AdultAntibodyCOVID-19healthcare professionalsPCRSARS-CoV-2serology

Identifiers

PMID33941453
PMCPMC8064872

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.