Cited by 669SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence in santa clara county, california

Open access
Bendavid, Eran, Mulaney, Bianca, Sood, Neeraj, Shah, Soleil, Bromley-Dulfano, Rebecca, Lai, Cara, Weissberg, Zoe, Saavedra-Walker, Rodrigo +7 more·2021·International Journal of Epidemiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Measuring the seroprevalence of antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is central to understanding infection risk and fatality rates. We studied Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-antibody seroprevalence in a community sample drawn from Santa Clara County. METHODS: On 3 and 4 April 2020, we tested 3328 county residents for immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a rapid lateral-flow assay (Premier Biotech). Participants were recruited using advertisements that were targeted to reach county residents that matched the county population by gender, race/ethnicity and zip code of residence. We estimate weights to match our sample to the county by zip, age, sex and race/ethnicity. We report the weighted and unweighted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. We adjust for test-performance characteristics by combining data from 18 independent test-kit assessments: 14 for specificity and 4 for sensitivity. RESULTS: The raw prevalence of antibodies in our sample was 1.5% [exact binomial 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.0%]. Test-performance specificity in our data was 99.5% (95% CI 99.2-99.7%) and sensitivity was 82.8% (95% CI 76.0-88.4%). The unweighted prevalence adjusted for test-performance characteristics was 1.2% (95% CI 0.7-1.8%). After weighting for population demographics, the prevalence was 2.8% (95% CI 1.3-4.2%), using bootstrap to estimate confidence bounds. These prevalence point estimates imply that 53 000 [95% CI 26 000 to 82 000 using weighted prevalence; 23 000 (95% CI 14 000-35 000) using unweighted prevalence] people were infected in Santa Clara County by late March-many more than the ∼1200 confirmed cases at the time. CONCLUSION: The estimated prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that COVID-19 was likely more widespread than indicated by the number of cases in late March, 2020. At the time, low-burden contexts such as Santa Clara County were far from herd-immunity thresholds.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyab010

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Novel Coronavirus Press Archives—Public Health Department—County of Santa Clara. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/DiseaseInformation/novel-coronavirus/Pages/archives.aspx (12 April 2020, date last accessed).
  2. [19]Salomon JA. Defining high-value information for COVID-19 decision-making. medRxiv 2020;2020.04.06.20052506. http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/08/2020.04.06.20052506.abstract (11 February 2021, date last accessed).
  3. [31]Coronavirus (COVID-19): Press Conference with Marc Lipsitch, 03/04/20. News. 2020. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/coronavirus-covid-19-press-conference-with-marc-lipsitch-03-04-20/ (10 April 2020, date last accessed).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bendavid, E., Mulaney, B., Sood, N., Shah, S., Bromley-Dulfano, R., Lai, C., Weissberg, Z., Saavedra-Walker, R., Tedrow, J., Bogan, A., Kupiec, T., Eichner, D., Gupta, R., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Bhattacharya, J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Health Education is Power, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA
  • The Compliance Resource Group, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK, USA
  • Bogan Associates, LLC, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Corresponding author
Bendavid, Eran
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2021-02-22
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
410-419
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W3129346638
Cited by
669
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 156 · 2020: 341
FWCI
23.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Stanford COVID-19 Seroprevalence Studies Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
COVID-19 seroprevalence, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, seroprevalence, IgM and IgG antibodies, Santa Clara County, lateral flow assay, assay sensitivity and specificity, prevalence estimation, unreported infections, population weighting
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Antibodies, Viral, California, Humans, Seroepidemiologic Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review