ArticleBMJ open2021
SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthcare workers of a teaching hospital in a highly endemic region in the Netherlands after the first wave: a cross-sectional study.
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 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seroprevalence of SARS CoV 2 IgG in pandemic frontline healthcare workers.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers in Dutch hospitals after the 2020 first wave: a multicentre cross-sectional study with prospective follow-up.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023Article
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
objectiveTo study the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among hospital healthcare workers after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and provide more knowledge in the understanding of the relationship between infection, symptomatology and source of infection.
designA cross-sectional study in healthcare workers.
settingNorthern Limburg, the Netherlands.
participantsAll employees of VieCuri Medical Center (n=3300) were invited to enrol in current study. In total 2507 healthcare workers participated.
interventionBetween 22 June 2020 and 3 July 2020, participants provided venous blood samples voluntarily, which were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ig total ELISA test. Work characteristics, exposure risks and prior symptoms consistent with COVID-19 were gathered through a survey.
main outcome measureProportion of healthcare workers with positive SARS-CoV-2 serology.
resultsThe overall seroprevalence was 21.1% (n=530/2507). Healthcare workers between 17 and 30 years were more likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies compared with participants >30 years. The probability of having SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was comparable for healthcare workers with and without direct patient (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.34) and COVID-19 patient contact (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.33). On the contrary, exposure to COVID-19 positive coworkers (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.93) and household members (OR 6.09, 95% CI 2.23 to 16.64) was associated with seropositivity. Of those healthcare workers with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, 16% (n=85/530) had not experienced any prior COVID-19-related symptoms. Only fever and anosmia were associated with seropositivity (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.55 and OR 10.51, 95% CI 7.86 to 14.07).
conclusionsHealthcare workers caring for hospitalised COVID-19 patients were not at an increased risk of infection, most likely as a result of taking standard infection control measures into consideration. These data show that compliance with infection control measures is essential to control secondary transmission and constrain the spread of the virus.
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.