ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence: experiences of a tertiary eye centre.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04446338 (Immune Status), which is not on this 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.
Immune Status: Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in a Sample of the Eye Department (University Eye Hospital and Research Institute Tübingen)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe actual prevalence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection and the individual assessment of being or having been infected may differ. Facing the great uncertainty-especially at the beginning of the pandemic-and the possibility of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, subclinical infections, we evaluate the experience of SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening at a tertiary clinical setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All employees of a tertiary eye centre and a research institute of ophthalmology were offered antibody testing in May 2020, using a sequential combination of different validated assays/antigens and point-of-care (POC) testing for a subset (NCT04446338). Before taking blood, a systematic inquiry into past symptoms, known contacts and a subjective self-assessment was documented. The correlations between serostatus, patient contacts and demographic characteristics were analysed. Different tests were compared by Kappa statistics.
resultsAmong 318 participants, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 9 employees. Chemiluminescence assays (chemiluminescence immunoassay and electrochemiluminescence) showed superior specificity and high reproducibility, compared with ELISA and POC results.In contrast to the low seropositivity (2.8%) of healthcare workers, higher than that of the other departments of the hospital, a large proportion mistakenly assumed that they might have already been infected. Antiviral antibody titres increased and remained on a plateau for at least 3 months.
conclusionsThe great demand and acceptance confirmed the benefit of highly sensitive testing methods in the early phase of the pandemic. The coincidence of low seroprevalence and anxious employees may have contributed to internalising the need of hygiene measures.
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.