Abstract
Background Blood donors are increasingly being recognized as an informative resource for surveillance. We aimed to review and characterize SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies conducted using blood donors to investigate methodology and provide guidance for future research.
Methods We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed and preprint publications between January 2020 to January 2021. Two reviewers used standardized forms to extract seroprevalence estimates and data on methodology pertaining to population sampling, periodicity, assay characteristics and antibody kinetics. National data on cumulative incidence and social distancing policies were extracted from publicly available sources and summarized.
Results Thirty-three studies representing 1,323,307 blood donations from 20 countries worldwide were included (sample size per study ranged from 22 to 953,926 donations). Seroprevalence rates ranged from 0% to 76% (after adjusting for waning antibodies). Overall, less than 1 in 5 studies reported standardized seroprevalence rates to reflect the demographics of the general population. Stratification by age and sex were most common (64% of studies), followed by region (48%). 52% of studies reported seroprevalence at a single time point. Overall, 27 unique assay combinations were identified, 55% of studies used a single assay and only 39% adjusted seroprevalence rates for imperfect test characteristics. Among the eight nationally representative studies case detection was most underrepresented in Kenya (1:1264).
Conclusion As of December 11, 2020, 79% of studies reported seroprevalence rates <10%; thresholds far from reaching herd immunity. In addition to differences in community transmission and diverse public health policies, study designs and methodology were likely contributing factors to seroprevalence heterogeneity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Canadian Blood Services
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
NA
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
List of references included in this scoping review are available
