Back

The Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe: A Systematic Review

Vaselli, N. M.; Hungerford, D.; Shenton, B.; Khashkhusha, A.; Cunliffe, N.; French, N.

2021-04-12 microbiology
10.1101/2021.04.12.439425 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundA year following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, new infections and deaths continue to increase in Europe. Serological studies, through providing evidence of past infection, can aid understanding of the population dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection. ObjectivesThis systematic review of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies in Europe was undertaken to inform public health strategies including vaccination, that aim to accelerate population immunity. MethodsWe searched the databases Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources for studies reporting seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Europe published between 01/12/2019 - 30/09/20. We provide a narrative synthesis of included studies. Studies were categorized into subgroups including healthcare workers (HCWs), community, outbreaks, pregnancy and children/school. Due to heterogeneity in other subgroups, we only performed a random effects meta-analysis of the seroprevalence amongst HCWs stratified by their country. Results109 studies were included spanning 17 European countries, that estimated the seroprevalence of SAR-CoV2 from samples obtained between November 2019 - August 2020. A total of 53/109 studies included HCWs with a reported seroprevalence among HCWs ranging from 0.7% to 45.3%, which did not differ significantly by country. In community studies significant heterogeneity was reported in the seroprevalence among different age groups and the majority of studies reported there was no significant difference by gender. ConclusionThis review demonstrates a wide heterogeneity in reported seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies between populations. Continued evaluation of seroprevalence is required to understand the impact of public health measures and inform interventions including vaccination programmes.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.