Occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare personnel: results from an early systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis
ISSN: 2531-6745
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomed
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101295064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 11 2021
03 11 2021
Historique:
received:
11
08
2020
accepted:
12
08
2020
entrez:
5
11
2021
pubmed:
6
11
2021
medline:
10
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
SARS-CoV-2 infection has become a global public health concern globally. Even though Healthcare Workers (HCWs) are supposedly at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, to date no pooled evidence has been collected. We searched online electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, medRxiv.org for pre-prints) for all available contribution (up to May 20, 2019). Two Authors independently screened articles and extracted the data. The pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was analyzed using the random-effects model. The possible sources of heterogeneity were analyzed through subgroup analysis, and meta-regression. The overall pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 3.5% (95%CI 1.8-6.6) for studies based on molecular assays, 5.5% (95%CI 2.1-14.1) for studies based on serological assays, and 6.5% (95%CI 2.5-15.6) for point-of-care capillary blood tests. Among subgroups, serological tests identified higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in physicians than in nurses (OR 1.436, 95%CI 1.026 to 2.008). Regression analysis indicated the possible presence of publication bias only for molecular tests (t -3.3526, p-value 0.002648). The overall pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was lower than previously expected, but available studies were affected by significant heterogeneity, and the molecular studies by significant publication bias. Therefore, further high-quality research in the field is warranted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
SARS-CoV-2 infection has become a global public health concern globally. Even though Healthcare Workers (HCWs) are supposedly at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, to date no pooled evidence has been collected.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched online electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, medRxiv.org for pre-prints) for all available contribution (up to May 20, 2019). Two Authors independently screened articles and extracted the data. The pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was analyzed using the random-effects model. The possible sources of heterogeneity were analyzed through subgroup analysis, and meta-regression.
RESULTS
The overall pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 3.5% (95%CI 1.8-6.6) for studies based on molecular assays, 5.5% (95%CI 2.1-14.1) for studies based on serological assays, and 6.5% (95%CI 2.5-15.6) for point-of-care capillary blood tests. Among subgroups, serological tests identified higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in physicians than in nurses (OR 1.436, 95%CI 1.026 to 2.008). Regression analysis indicated the possible presence of publication bias only for molecular tests (t -3.3526, p-value 0.002648).
CONCLUSIONS
The overall pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was lower than previously expected, but available studies were affected by significant heterogeneity, and the molecular studies by significant publication bias. Therefore, further high-quality research in the field is warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34738585
doi: 10.23750/abm.v92i5.10438
pmc: PMC8689308
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2021311Références
Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 8;11(1):3500
pubmed: 32641730
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1199-1207
pubmed: 31995857
JAMA. 2020 Jun 16;323(23):2424-2425
pubmed: 32407440
J Clin Med. 2020 May 18;9(5):
pubmed: 32443459
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Oct;26(10):1413.e9-1413.e13
pubmed: 32569835
Acta Biomed. 2020 May 11;91(2):137-145
pubmed: 32420937
Lancet. 2020 May 23;395(10237):1608-1610
pubmed: 32401714
Euro Surveill. 2020 Apr;25(14):
pubmed: 32290904
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 5;71(8):1947-1952
pubmed: 32315026
Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):e77-e78
pubmed: 32333843
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Sep;26(9):1269-1270
pubmed: 32360779
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1061-1069
pubmed: 32031570
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2218-2221
pubmed: 32179890
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 16;20(1):853
pubmed: 33198725
Front Public Health. 2020 Dec 07;8:595348
pubmed: 33365297
Nat Med. 2020 Jun;26(6):845-848
pubmed: 32350462
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Jun;105(2):183-187
pubmed: 32278701
Elife. 2020 May 11;9:
pubmed: 32392129
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Apr 05;10(4):
pubmed: 32260471
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):1724-1727
pubmed: 32227490
Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(12):
pubmed: 32234115
QJM. 2020 Aug 10;:
pubmed: 32777050
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Jun;5(6):e310
pubmed: 32339478
Eur Respir J. 2020 May 14;55(5):
pubmed: 32217650
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):472-476
pubmed: 32298249
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Jul;105(3):580-581
pubmed: 32387745
Infection. 2020 Aug;48(4):631-634
pubmed: 32524515
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jan 27;72(2):265-270
pubmed: 33501962
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jul;128:104437
pubmed: 32434708
J Hosp Infect. 2020 May;105(1):100-101
pubmed: 32147406
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32245835
Acta Biomed. 2020 Apr 10;91(3-S):175-179
pubmed: 32275287
Euro Surveill. 2020 Apr;25(16):
pubmed: 32347200
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 May 28;11(6):
pubmed: 34071278
Acta Biomed. 2020 May 11;91(2):57-67
pubmed: 32420926
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020 Jul;31(5):560-564
pubmed: 32319131
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):747-756
pubmed: 32196430