ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2022
Changes in COVID-19 IgM and IgG antibodies in emergency medical technicians (EMTs).
Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment ofNew microbes and new infections · 2024Article
- Article
- Maternal COVID-19 infection and the fetus: Immunological and neurological perspectives.New microbes and new infections · 2023Review
- Higher benefit-risk ratio of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with schizophrenia and major depressive disorder versus patients with bipolar disorder when compared to controls.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- An Updated Review on Complicated Mechanisms of COVID-19 Pathogenesis and Therapy: Direct Viral Damage, Renin-angiotensin System Dysregulation, Immune System Derangements, and Endothelial Dysfunction.Infectious disorders drug targets · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Vaccination, Peltzman Effect and Possible Increase in Highrisk Behaviors: A Growing Concern Related to Risk Compensation and Reduced Compliance to Public Health Protective Measures after Vaccines Rollout.Infectious disorders drug targets · 2022Article
- Emergency Medical Services Prehospital Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US: A Brief Literature Review.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2022Review
- Cytomegalovirus Infection: Concern for Occupational, Environmental, and Nosocomial Infections?Indian journal of occupational and environmental medicineArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSerologic testing can provide a safe and fast approach for assessing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These tests can be utilized as a complementary method in diagnosis and patients' follow-up, and can also be helpful in epidemiological studies. This study aimed to describe temporal changes in the incidence of COVID-19 IgM and IgG antibodies in emergency medical technicians (EMTs) within a specified time period.
methodsAll EMTs working for Tehran Emergency Medical Service (EMS) center during May to September 2020 were eligible for this study. Those EMTs who were suspected/probable/confirmed cases of COVID-19, based on WHO defined criteria and were willing to participate, entered the study. The EMTs underwent serology testing four weeks after the occurrence of exposure (in suspected cases) or onset of their symptoms (in probable/confirmed cases). Cases were further confirmed by RT-PCR and/or lung CT, and antibody testing was performed for the second and third time with 12-week intervals. Finger-stick blood sampling was utilized for the specimen collection in three different phases. Samples were then analyzed by a commercial immunochromatography-based kit for qualitative measurement of serum IgM and IgG antibodies against the COVID-19 S-protein antigen.
resultsTwo hundred eighty-four participants met the inclusion criteria; their mean age was 35.9 (SD = 7.6) years and consisted of 244 (85.9%) males. COVID-19 was confirmed in 169 out of 284 participants. Subsequently, 142 and 122 participants were included in phases 2 and 3 of the study, respectively. The number of seronegative patients exceeded seropositive ones in all three phases. At baseline, 162 (57%) patients were seronegative, 27 (9.5%) were only positive for IgG, 3 (1.1%) were only positive for IgM, and 92 (32.4%) were positive for both antibodies; Seventy-eight (54.9%) were seronegative, and 31 (21.8%) were positive for both antibodies in the second phase; These values were 85 (69.6%) and 8 (6.6%) for the third phase, respectively. Among the people who were positive IgG in the first phase (80 people), 56.3% were still positive in the second phase and 27.5% in both subsequent phases.
conclusionThe results of our study show that there is a significant reduction in COVID-19 antibody seropositivity over time.
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.