SARS-CoV-2 Circulation in the School Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The contribution of children to viral spread in schools is still debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the school setting. Literature searches on 15 May 2021 yielded a total of 1088 publications, including screening, contact tracing, and seroprevalence studies. MOOSE guidelines were followed, and data were analyzed using random-effects models. From screening studies involving more than 120,000 subjects, we estimated 0.31% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05–0.81) SARS-CoV-2 point prevalence in schools. Contact tracing studies, involving a total of 112,622 contacts of children and adults, showed that onward viral transmission was limited (2.54%, 95% CI 0.76–5.31). Young index cases were found to be 74% significantly less likely than adults to favor viral spread (odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.11–0.63) and less susceptible to infection (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.25–1.47). Lastly, from seroprevalence studies, with a total of 17,879 subjects involved, we estimated that children were 43% significantly less likely than adults to test positive for antibodies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49–0.68). These findings may not applied to the Omicron phase, we further planned a randomized controlled trial to verify these results.

Related collections

Most cited references 65

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2009)

0 comments Cited 7492 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Erik von Elm, Douglas G. Altman, Matthias Egger … (2008)

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

0 comments Cited 2712 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Systematic review of COVID‐19 in children shows milder cases and a better prognosis than adults

Jonas F. Ludvigsson (2020)

Abstract Aim The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has affected hundreds of thousands of people. Data on symptoms and prognosis in children are rare. Methods A systematic literature review was carried out to identify papers on COVID‐19, which is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), using the MEDLINE and Embase databases between January 1 and March 18, 2020. Results The search identified 45 relevant scientific papers and letters. The review showed that children have so far accounted for 1%‐5% of diagnosed COVID‐19 cases, they often have milder disease than adults and deaths have been extremely rare. Diagnostic findings have been similar to adults, with fever and respiratory symptoms being prevalent, but fewer children seem to have developed severe pneumonia. Elevated inflammatory markers were less common in children, and lymphocytopenia seemed rare. Newborn infants have developed symptomatic COVID‐19, but evidence of vertical intrauterine transmission was scarce. Suggested treatment included providing oxygen, inhalations, nutritional support and maintaining fluids and electrolyte balances. Conclusions The coronavirus disease 2019 has occurred in children, but they seemed to have a milder disease course and better prognosis than adults. Deaths were extremely rare.