ArticleVirology journal2025
Tracking SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in frontline healthcare workers at the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic and reliability of serological laboratory interpretation: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Virology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrontline healthcare workers (HCWs) faced a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to determine the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs using various serological methods and to evaluate diagnostic reliability.
methodsA prospective study was conducted on 240 frontline and 120 non-frontline HCWs at Siriraj Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, from May 2020 to March 2021. Blood samples were collected at enrollment and at 4, 12 and 48 weeks. Three serological methods were utilized: electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) for qualitative anti-nucleocapsid protein antibodies, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) for quantitative anti-spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies. ELISA-positive samples were further analyzed with microneutralization and flow cytometry-based assays.
resultsOne non-frontline HCW had initial positive ECLIA result but tested negative by both ELISA and CMIA. Two frontline HCWs consistently tested positive by ELISA over these 48 weeks, resulting in a seroprevalence of 0.83% (2/240) among frontline HCWs. Ten frontline and six non-frontline HCWs had borderline or positive level of anti-RBD IgG by ELISA but were negative for microneutralization. A flow cytometry-based assay suggested that these positive ELISA results were likely due to cross-reactivity from pre-existing antibodies against other human coronaviruses (HCoVs), particularly HCoV-HKU1.
conclusionsAn extremely low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs in Thailand at the pandemic's outset, likely due to effective transmission control. Pre-existing antibodies against other human coronaviruses could lead to false positive serological testing for SARS-CoV-2.
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.