ArticlePloS one2022
Serological testing of blood donors to characterise the impact of COVID-19 in Melbourne, Australia, 2020.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Higher uptake of common adult vaccines in Australian blood donors: An analysis of linked registry data.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- A data science pipeline applied to Australia's 2022 COVID-19 Omicron waves.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
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
Rapidly identifying and isolating people with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection has been a core strategy to contain COVID-19 in Australia, but a proportion of infections go undetected. We estimated SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody prevalence (seroprevalence) among blood donors in metropolitan Melbourne following a COVID-19 outbreak in the city between June and September 2020. The aim was to determine the extent of infection spread and whether seroprevalence varied demographically in proportion to reported cases of infection. The design involved stratified sampling of residual specimens from blood donors (aged 20-69 years) in three postcode groups defined by low (<3 cases/1,000 population), medium (3-7 cases/1,000 population) and high (>7 cases/1,000 population) COVID-19 incidence based on case notification data. All specimens were tested using the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay. Seroprevalence was estimated with adjustment for test sensitivity and specificity for the Melbourne metropolitan blood donor and residential populations, using multilevel regression and poststratification. Overall, 4,799 specimens were collected between 23 November and 17 December 2020. Seroprevalence for blood donors was 0.87% (90% credible interval: 0.25-1.49%). The highest estimates, of 1.13% (0.25-2.15%) and 1.11% (0.28-1.95%), respectively, were observed among donors living in the lowest socioeconomic areas (Quintiles 1 and 2) and lowest at 0.69% (0.14-1.39%) among donors living in the highest socioeconomic areas (Quintile 5). When extrapolated to the Melbourne residential population, overall seroprevalence was 0.90% (0.26-1.51%), with estimates by demography groups similar to those for the blood donors. The results suggest a lack of extensive community transmission and good COVID-19 case ascertainment based on routine testing during Victoria's second epidemic wave. Residual blood donor samples provide a practical epidemiological tool for estimating seroprevalence and information on population patterns of infection, against which the effectiveness of ongoing responses to the pandemic can be assessed.
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.