ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Mass SARS-CoV-2 molecular and serological screening of medical staff and patients in Hangzhou, China: no evidence of RNA detection, low seroprevalence, and limited exposure risk in the hospital setting.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess and limit the SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk from symptomless individuals in the hospital setting, molecular and serological screening of staff and patients attending a tertiary hospital in China was conducted.
methodsSARS-CoV-2 RNA was tested by quantitative RT-PCR. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG were screened initially with two lateral flow immunoassays (LFIs) and further confirmed with three chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs). The assay performance was assessed using archived samples from 32 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 80 healthy individuals.
resultsBetween April 24 and May 8, 2020, 16,043 subjects (7,392 medical staff, 4,714 inpatients, 1,209 chaperones, 1,705 outpatients, and 1,023 fever clinic patients) were screened. No subject tested positive for viral RNA. Seventy-three (0.46%) tested positive for IgM or IgG on the initial LFI screening, of whom 63 were investigated with CLIAs: 2 (0.01%) were confirmed as seroreactive and 18 (0.11%) were indeterminate. Unconfirmed seroreactivity was significantly more frequent in fever clinic patients. The CLIAs showed similar (95.0-100%) IgM or IgG specificity but higher IgG sensitivity (93.75-96.88%
conclusionsLow SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and limited exposure risk were observed. Seroprevalence varied between 0.012% and 0.12% according to the testing algorithm and the confirmation criteria used, indicating that quality standards for serological tests are needed. Protective immunity in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients who recovered needs to be investigated further, but the associated risk of transmission appeared limited.
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.