Observational studyAnnals of emergency medicine2022
A Prospective Observational Cohort Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Between Paramedics and Matched Blood Donors in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Observational study in Annals of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chronic health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on school workers: a cross-sectional post-pandemic analysis.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Cohort profile: recruitment and retention in a prospective cohort of Canadian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Article
- Eleven-month SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody decay, and associated factors, among mRNA vaccinees: implications for booster vaccination.Access microbiology · 2023Article
- Sensitivity of the Elecsys Nucleocapsid Assay for the Detection of Preceding SARS-CoV-2 Infections.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveSARS-CoV-2 represents an occupational risk to paramedics, who work in uncontrolled environments. We sought to identify the occupation-specific risk to paramedics by comparing their seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection-specific antibodies to that of blood donors in Canada.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, we performed serology testing (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid assay) on samples from paramedics and blood donors (January to July 2021) in Canada. Paramedic samples were compared to blood donor samples through 1:1-matched (based on age, sex, location, date of blood collection, and vaccination status) and raking weighted comparisons. We compared the seroprevalence with a risk difference (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) and performed secondary analyses within subgroups defined by vaccination status.
resultsThe 1:1 match included 1,627 cases per group; in both groups, 723 (44%) were women, with a median age of 38. The raking weighted comparison included 1,713 paramedic samples and 19,515 blood donor samples, with similar characteristics. In the 1:1 match, the seroprevalence was similar (difference 1.2; 95% CI -0.20 to 2.7) between paramedics (5.2%) and blood donors (3.9%). The raking weighted comparison was consistent (difference 0.97; 95% CI -0.10 to 2.0). The unvaccinated paramedic samples, in comparison to the blood donor samples, demonstrated a higher seroprevalence in the 1:1 (difference 5.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 10) and weighted (difference 6.5; 95% CI 1.8 to 10) comparisons. Among vaccinated cases, the between-group seroprevalence was similar.
conclusionOverall, paramedics demonstrated similar evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of blood donors. However, among unvaccinated individuals, evidence of prior infection was higher among paramedics compared to blood donors.
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.