Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39339937›Full record

ArticleViruses2024

SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity in Nursing Home Staff and Residents during the First SARS-CoV-2 Wave in Flanders, Belgium.

Liselore De Rop, Hanne Vercruysse, Ulysse Alenus, Judith Brusselmans, Steven Callens, Maud Claeys, Nimphe De Coene, Peter Persyn, Elizaveta Padalko, Stefan Heytens and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

12 authors.

Liselore De RopLUHTAR, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0111-9508
Hanne VercruysseResearch and Analytics, Liantis Occupational Health Services, 8000 Bruges, Belgium.
Ulysse AlenusDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Judith BrusselmansDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Steven CallensDepartment of Internal Medicine & Infectious Diseases, Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Maud ClaeysDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Nimphe De CoeneDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Peter PersynMedical Department, Korian Belgium NH, 2550 Kontich, Belgium.
Elizaveta PadalkoLaboratory of Clinical Biology, University Hospital Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Stefan HeytensDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1097-4987
Jan Y VerbakelLUHTAR, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7166-7211
Piet CoolsDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2980-5307

Funding

Special Research Fund of Ghent University BOF.COV.2020.0010.01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: early in the COVID-19 pandemic, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was limited. Assessing seroprevalence helps understand prevalence and reinfection risk. However, such data are lacking for the first epidemic wave in Belgian nursing homes. Therefore, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and cumulative RT-PCR positivity in Belgian nursing homes and evaluated reinfection risk. (2) Methods: we performed a cross-sectional study in nine nursing homes in April and May 2020. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare the odds of (re)infection between seropositive and seronegative participants. (3) Results: seroprevalence was 21% (95% CI: 18-23): 22% (95% CI: 18-25) in residents and 20% (95% CI: 17-24) in staff. By 20 May 2020, cumulative RT-PCR positivity was 16% (95% CI: 13-21) in residents and 8% (95% CI: 6-12) in staff. ORs for (re)infection in seropositive (compared to seronegative) residents and staff were 0.22 (95% CI: 0.06-0.72) and 3.15 (95% CI: 1.56-6.63), respectively. (4) Conclusion: during the first wave, RT-PCR test programmes underestimated the number of COVID-19 cases. The reinfection rate in residents was 3%, indicating protection, while it was 21% in staff, potentially due to less cautious health behaviour. Future outbreaks should use both RT-PCR and serological testing for complementary insights into transmission dynamics.

Indexed as

COVID-19Nursing HomesSARS-CoV-2AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, ViralBelgiumCOVID-19 Serological TestingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19nursing homesreinfectionRT-PCR testingSARS-CoV-2seroprevalence

Identifiers

PMID39339937
PMCPMC11437469

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.