ArticleEpidemiology and infection2022
COVID-19 seroprevalence amongst healthcare workers: potential biases in estimating infection prevalence.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An Effective Mechanism for the Early Detection and Containment of Healthcare Worker Infections in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- The prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infections among healthcare workers, results of a cross-sectional study in the Silesian Voivodeship.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 serological tests are used to assess the infection seroprevalence within a population. This study aims at assessing potential biases in estimating infection prevalence amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) when different diagnostic criteria are considered. A multi-site cross-sectional study was carried out in April-September 2020 amongst 1.367 Italian HCWs. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was assessed using three diagnostic criteria: RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab, point-of-care fingerprick serological test (POCT) result and COVID-19 clinical pathognomonic presentation. A logistic regression model was used to estimate the probability of POCT-positive result in relation to the time since infection (RT-PCR positivity). Among 1.367 HCWs, 69.2% were working in COVID-19 units. Statistically significant differences in age, role and gender were observed between COVID-19/non-COVID-19 units. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied according to the criterion considered: 6.7% for POCT, 8.1% for RT-PCR, 10.0% for either POCT or RT-PCR, 9.6% for infection pathognomonic clinical presentation and 17.6% when at least one of the previous criteria was present. The probability of POCT-positive result decreased by 1.1% every 10 days from the infection. This study highlights potential biases in estimating SARS-CoV-2 point-prevalence data according to the criteria used. Although informative on infection susceptibility and herd immunity level, POCT serological tests are not the best predictors of previous COVID-19 infections for public health monitoring programmes.
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.