Seroprevalence of COVID-19 virus infection in Guilan province, Iran

Shakiba, Maryam; Nazari, Seyed Saeed Hashemi; Mehrabian, Fardin; Rezvani, Seyed Mahmoud; Ghasempour, Zahra; Heidarzadeh, Abtin

doi:10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244

Cited by 115 publications

(156 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 18 studies were contact-tracing studies (CTSs), 7,10,12,16-31 with 3 based in schools, [29][30][31] and 14 studies were population screening studies. 7, [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] Two were high quality, 33,35 22 were medium quality, 10,12,16,21,22,[24][25][26][27][29][30][31][32]34,36,38,[40][41][42][43][44][45] 7 were low quality, [17][18][19][20]23,28,39 and 1 was uncertain quality. 7,37…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data from prevalence studies for children and adolescents compared with adults are shown in Figure 4. 7, [32][33][34][35][36][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] We did not undertake a meta-analysis of population screening studies given the important differences in the populations, epidemic time points, and methodologies involved.…”

Section: Population Screening Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…35 A total of 10 studies reported seroprevalence, 7,36,38-45 3 being nationally representative. 7,36,38 A lower seroprevalence was identified in children and in some adolescents compared with adults in a number of studies, including a nationally representative study in Spain (ENE-COVID), 36 a Dutch nationally representative study (PIENTER Corona study), 7,37 and city or regional studies from Iran, 39 the US, 40 Switzerland, 41 and Japan, 42 although no difference by age was found in a survey in 133 sentinel cities in 26 Brazilian states. 38 Two community-based studies following localized outbreaks found lower seroprevalence among children and adolescents than adults in Lombardy, Italy, 43 and Thuringia, Germany, 44 with a second German postoutbreak study 45 finding no overall association with age.…”

Section: Population Screening Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The degree to which children and adolescents are infected by and transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. The role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent on susceptibility, symptoms, viral load, social contact patterns, and behavior. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the susceptibility to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and adolescents compared with adults. DATA SOURCES PubMed and medRxiv were searched from database inception to July 28, 2020, and a total of 13 926 studies were identified, with additional studies identified through hand searching of cited references and professional contacts. STUDY SELECTION Studies that provided data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents (younger than 20 years) compared with adults (20 years and older) derived from contact tracing or population screening were included. Single-household studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS PRISMA guidelines for abstracting data were followed, which was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using a critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Secondary infection rate (contact-tracing studies) or prevalence or seroprevalence (population screening studies) among children and adolescents compared with adults. RESULTS A total of 32 studies comprising 41 640 children and adolescents and 268 945 adults met inclusion criteria, including 18 contact-tracing studies and 14 population screening studies. The pooled odds ratio of being an infected contact in children compared with adults was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37-0.85), with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 94.6%). Three school-based contact-tracing studies found minimal transmission from child or teacher index cases. Findings from population screening studies were heterogenous and were not suitable for meta-analysis. Most studies were consistent with lower seroprevalence in children compared with adults, although seroprevalence in adolescents appeared similar to adults. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this meta-analysis, there is preliminary evidence that children and adolescents have lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, with an odds ratio of 0.56 for being an infected contact compared with adults. There is weak evidence that children and adolescents play a lesser role than adults in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at a population level. This study provides no information on the infectivity of children.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Population Screening Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Population Screening Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The highest proportion of participants who tested positive for IgG titers amongst studies reporting an aggregate IgG seropositivity rate was 21.0% in a representative, general population study with 528 participants from the Guilan Province in Iran. (16) Of the 11 (41%) studies that reported the proportion of study participants that tested positive for IgM SARS-CoV-2 titers, the reported proportions ranged from 0.6% in a study of 1,000 blood donors in Scotland(13) to 32.0% in a study with a non-representative, general population sample of 200 participants from Chelsea, Massachusetts in the United States. (17) The studies on the ends of this range reported aggregate proportions of patients who tested positive for IgG titers, IgM titers, or both titers rather than separately.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(18) The highest proportion of study participants that tested positive for IgM titers amongst studies reporting IgM speci cally was from a representative sample of the general population containing 528 participants in the Guilan Province in Iran (18.9%). (16) One study (4%) evaluated neutralizing antibodies and detected these antibodies in 1% (5/500) of the study sample. (13)…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Studies: A Rapid Review

Chess¹,

Jacobson²,

Smith³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 serology tests have been used to understand the extent to which populations have been infected. The objective of this study was to synthesize literature on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, including sampling frames, study characteristics, assay test performance characteristics, and proportion of participants with IgG and IgM SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.Methods: Bibliometric databases, trial registers, pre-print servers, and grey literature were searched through May 27, 2020 using a published protocol to identify eligible studies. Title and abstract screening and full-text reviewing were performed in duplicate. Study-level data were extracted, and a narrative synthesis was performed. Results: Of the 4,049 studies screened for inclusion, 27 published reports were included, and 85 studies are ongoing. Most (52%) published reports were available through pre-print servers. Sample sizes ranged from 200 to 113,033 participants. Healthcare worker (n=9 studies, 33%) and non-representative, general population (n=10 studies, 37%) sampling frames were more commonly used than representative, general population sampling frames (n=7, 26%). Mean age ranged from 18 up to 69 years, and the proportion of females ranged from 25% to 85%. Test performance characteristics varied, including IgG sensitivity (range: 63.3% to 100%) and IgG specificity (range: 97.0% to 100%). IgG seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.5% to 21.0%, and IgM seroprevalence ranged from 1.1% to 18.9%.Conclusion: More high-quality SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies using validated assays with larger sample sizes from representative and targeted sampling frames are needed to better understand the true burden of disease, differential spread of the virus, and infection fatality rate.

show abstract

Population‐based prevalence surveys during the Covid‐19 pandemic: A systematic review

Franceschi

Santos

Glaeser

et al. 2020

Reviews in Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Population‐based prevalence surveys of Covid‐19 contribute to establish the burden of infection, the role of asymptomatic and mild infections in transmission, and allow more precise decisions about reopen policies. We performed a systematic review to evaluate qualitative aspects of these studies, assessing their reliability and compiling practices that can influence the methodological quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, bioRxiv and medRxiv, and included cross‐sectional studies using molecular and/or serological tests to estimate the prevalence of Covid‐19 in the general population. Survey quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. A correspondence analysis correlated methodological parameters of each study to identify patterns related to higher, intermediate and lower risks of bias. The available data described 37 surveys from 19 countries. The majority were from Europe and America, used antibody testing, and reached highly heterogeneous sample sizes and prevalence estimates. Minority communities were disproportionately affected by Covid‐19. Important risk of bias was detected in four domains: sample size, data analysis with sufficient coverage, measurements in standard way and response rate. The correspondence analysis showed few consistent patterns for high risk of bias. Intermediate risk of bias was related to American and European studies, municipal and regional initiatives, blood samples and prevalence >1%. Low risk of bias was related to Asian studies, nationwide initiatives, reverse‐transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests and prevalence <1%. We identified methodological standards applied worldwide in Covid‐19 prevalence surveys, which may assist researchers with the planning, execution and reporting of future population‐based surveys.

show abstract

Seroprevalence of COVID-19 virus infection in Guilan province, Iran

Cited by 115 publications

References 16 publications

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Studies: A Rapid Review

Population‐based prevalence surveys during the Covid‐19 pandemic: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About