SynthesisBMJ open2023
Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. 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.
- Profile, Infection, and Vaccination Uptake: A Cohort of Canadian Retail Workers During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.Infectious disease reports · 2025Article
- Patterns of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among essential workers in long term care and retirement homes in Ontario, Canada: A descriptive cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence by industry, workplace characteristics, and workplace infection prevention and control measures, North Carolina, USA, 2021 to 2022.Annals of work exposures and health · 2024Article
- Occupation and COVID-19: Lessons From the Pandemic.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2024Article
- Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 in Europe: a review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- Education and pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infections in the German working population - the mediating role of working from home.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2024Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe and synthesise studies of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence by occupation prior to the widespread vaccine roll-out.
methodsWe identified studies of occupational seroprevalence from a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020183634). Electronic databases, grey literature and news media were searched for studies published during January-December 2020. Seroprevalence estimates and a free-text description of the occupation were extracted and classified according to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2010 system using a machine-learning algorithm. Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesised narratively.
resultsWe identified 196 studies including 591 940 participants from 38 countries. Most studies (n=162; 83%) were conducted locally versus regionally or nationally. Sample sizes were generally small (median=220 participants per occupation) and 135 studies (69%) were at a high risk of bias. One or more estimates were available for 21/23 major SOC occupation groups, but over half of the estimates identified (n=359/600) were for healthcare-related occupations. 'Personal Care and Service Occupations' (median 22% (IQR 9-28%); n=14) had the highest median seroprevalence.
conclusionsMany seroprevalence studies covering a broad range of occupations were published in the first year of the pandemic. Results suggest considerable differences in seroprevalence between occupations, although few large, high-quality studies were done. Well-designed studies are required to improve our understanding of the occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 and should be considered as an element of pandemic preparedness for future respiratory pathogens.
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.