Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36655924›Full record

SynthesisJournal of global health2023

Differential COVID-19 infection rates in children, adults, and elderly: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies.

Cathrine Axfors, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Alexandre Apostolatos, John Pa Ioannidis

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Estimates of COVID-19 deaths in Mainland China after abandoning zero COVID policy.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Cathrine Axfors *Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Angelo Maria Pezzullo *Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Despina G Contopoulos-IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Alexandre ApostolatosMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
John Pa IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Debate exists about whether extra protection of elderly and other vulnerable individuals is feasible in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the relative infection rates in the elderly vs the non-elderly and, secondarily, in children vs adults. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of seroprevalence studies conducted in the pre-vaccination era. We identified representative national studies without high risk of bias through SeroTracker and PubMed searches (last updated May 17, 2022). We noted seroprevalence estimates for children, non-elderly adults, and elderly adults, using cut-offs of 20 and 60 years (or as close to these ages, if they were unavailable) and compared them between different age groups. Results: We included 38 national seroprevalence studies from 36 different countries comprising 826 963 participants. Twenty-six of these studies also included pediatric populations and twenty-five were from high-income countries. The median ratio of seroprevalence in elderly vs non-elderly adults (or non-elderly in general, if pediatric and adult population data were not offered separately) was 0.90-0.95 in different analyses, with large variability across studies. In five studies (all in high-income countries), we observed significant protection of the elderly with a ratio of <0.40, with a median of 0.83 in high-income countries and 1.02 elsewhere. The median ratio of seroprevalence in children vs adults was 0.89 and only one study showed a significant ratio of <0.40. The main limitation of our study is the inaccuracies and biases in seroprevalence studies. Conclusions: Precision shielding of elderly community-dwelling populations before the availability of vaccines was indicated in some high-income countries, but most countries failed to achieve any substantial focused protection. Registration: Open Science Framework (available at: https://osf.io/xvupr).

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultBiasChildHumansMiddle AgedSeroepidemiologic StudiesVaccination

Identifiers

PMID36655924
PMCPMC9850866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.