Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Antibody avidity (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Persistence SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (1)
- Sensitivity (1)
- Specificity (1)
- neutralization (1)
Non-standard errors
(2021)
In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.
Objective: Nationwide data on the epidemiology, treatment characteristics, and long-term outcome of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Germany is not yet existing. Neurosurgeons from the German Neurosurgery Society (DGNC) and traumatologists from the German Trauma Society (DGU), therefore, joined forces in 2016 to conceptualize a TBI module for the well-established Trauma Register of the DGU (TR-DGU). Here, we report how this “German National TBI registry (GNTR)” has been developed, implemented, and tested in a recently completed pilot period.
Methods: The conception and implementation process of the GNTR from August 2016 to February 2019 is described, and results of its 23-months long pilot period from February 2019 to December 2020 are presented. For the pilot period, TBI patients were prospectively enrolled at nine neurosurgical and traumatological hospitals across Germany. Inclusion criteria were treatment on the ICU ≥ 24h, or an ISS score ≥ 16. A variety of clinical, imaging, and laboratory parameters were collected, and the GOSE score was used to assess the outcome at discharge and 6- and 12 months follow-up.
Results: Details on the structure and dataset of the GNTR as well as milestones and pitfalls during its conception and implementation, are outlined. During the pilot period, a total of 264 TBI patients were enrolled. Their demographic characteristics, clinical, imaging, and radiological findings, and their early mortality and functional outcome are described. Furthermore, factors associated with an unfavorable outcome (GOSE 1-4) are assessed using uni- and multivariate regression analyses. Finally, problems and future directions of the GNTR are discussed.
Conclusion: The pilot period of the GNTR offers a first glance at the current epidemiology and treatment characteristics of TBI patients in Germany. More importantly, they show how a national TBI registry yielding high-quality prospective data can be developed, implemented, and tested within four years
Background: Antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2 requires an understanding of its variation, course, and duration.
Methods: Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated over 5–430 days on 828 samples across COVID-19 severity levels, for total antibody (TAb), IgG, IgA, IgM, neutralizing antibody (NAb), antibody avidity, and for receptor-binding-domain (RBD), spike (S), or nucleoprotein (N). Specificity was determined on 676 pre-pandemic samples.
Results: Sensitivity at 30–60 days post symptom onset (pso) for TAb-S/RBD, TAb-N, IgG-S, IgG-N, IgA-S, IgM-RBD, and NAb was 96.6%, 99.5%, 89.7%, 94.3%, 80.9%, 76.9% and 92.8%, respectively. Follow-up 430 days pso revealed: TAb-S/RBD increased slightly (100.0%); TAb-N decreased slightly (97.1%); IgG-S and IgA-S decreased moderately (81.4%, 65.7%); NAb remained positive (94.3%), slightly decreasing in activity after 300 days; there was correlation with IgG-S (Rs = 0.88) and IgA-S (Rs = 0.71); IgG-N decreased significantly from day 120 (15.7%); IgM-RBD dropped after 30–60 days (22.9%). High antibody avidity developed against S/RBD steadily with time in 94.3% of patients after 430 days. This correlated with persistent antibody detection depending on antibody-binding efficiency of the test design. Severe COVID-19 correlated with earlier and higher antibody response, mild COVID-19 was heterogeneous with a wide range of antibody reactivities. Specificity of the tests was ≥99%, except for IgA (96%).
Conclusion: Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays was determined by test design, target antigen, antibody avidity, and COVID-19 severity. Sustained antibody detection was mainly determined by avidity progression for RBD and S. Testing by TAb and for S/RBD provided the highest sensitivity and longest detection duration of 14 months so far.