ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2026
Comparability of Canadian SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates with statistical adjustment for socio-demographic representation.
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSARS-CoV-2 serological surveillance used blood donors, research cohorts, and residual patient samples. Differences in socio-demographic characteristics across these sources may bias seroprevalence estimates, necessitating statistical adjustment.
methodsWe re-analyzed data from six serosurveillance sources, comparing the estimated percent of the population positive for SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies for six regions during periods when the sources' sample collection overlapped. We assessed the concordance between sources with and without using multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) to adjust for differences in representation by age, sex, and race.
resultsAcross regions and timepoints, unadjusted seroprevalence differed between sources by up to 20%. MRP did not consistently improve comparability of seroprevalence across sources. In 2022, seroprevalence was consistently highest among blood donors, and MRP increased regional seroprevalence across all sources (except in Manitoba during January-April 2022 in ABC Study). In a secondary regression analysis, immunoassay kit and sample type (dried blood spot or venous blood draw) strongly influenced the odds that a sample was classified as seropositive.
conclusionAdjusting for representativeness using common socio-demographic variables did not systematically improve concordance in seropositivity estimates between serosurveillance sources. While discrepancies between sources might be influenced by studies' representativeness of characteristics we did not assess, methods for measuring seropositivity appear to explain much of the differences between sources. Serosurveillance findings are influenced by many aspects of study design beyond representativeness, such as sample type (venous blood draw or dried blood spots), choice of immunoassay, and laboratory procedures such as dilution or immunoassay calibration.
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.