Performance of an extended triage questionnaire to detect suspected cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in obstetric patients: Experience from two large teaching hospitals in Lombardy, Northern Italy.

OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the performance of an extended questionnaire in identifying cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among obstetric patients. 2. To evaluate the rate of infection among healthcare workers involved in women's care. STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of obstetric patients admitted to MBBM Foundation and Buzzi Hospital (Lombardy, Northern Italy) from March 16th to May 22nd, 2020. Women were screened on admission by a questionnaire investigating major and minor symptoms of infection and high-risk contacts in the last 14 days. SARS-CoV-2 assessment was performed by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. Till April 7th, a targeted SARS-CoV-2 testing triggered by a positive questionnaire was used; from April 8th, a universal testing approach was implemented.
RESULTS: There were 1,177 women screened by the questionnaire, which yielded a positive result in 130 (11.0%) cases. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was performed in 865 (73.5%) patients, identifying 51 (5.9%) infections. During the first period, there were 29 infected mothers, 4 (13.8%) of whom had a negative questionnaire. After universal testing implementation, there were 22 (3%, 95% CI 1.94% - 4.04%) infected mothers, 13 (59.1%) of whom had a negative questionnaire; rate of infection among asymptomatic women was 1.9%. Six of the 17 SARS-CoV-2-positive women with a negative questionnaire reported symptoms more than 14 but within 30 days before admission. Isolated olfactory or taste disorders were identified in 15.7% of infected patients. Rate of infection among healthcare workers was 5.8%.
CONCLUSIONS: An exhaustive triage questionnaire can effectively discriminate women at low risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the context of a targeted and a universal viral testing approach. In 15.7% of infected women, correct classification as a suspected case of infection was due to investigation of olfactory and taste disorders. Extension of the assessed time-frame to 30 days may be worth considering to increase the questionnaire's performance.

Introduction

The novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a new, unexpected public health emergency. Italy has been particularly affected, with Lombardy being the country epicenter of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak [1, 2].

Obstetric patients and their caring physicians face unique challenges for their need of in-person visits and hospital admission for delivery.

Identification of suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection at admission is essential for correctly applying isolation measures and use of personal protective equipment (PPE), thus protecting the women, their newborns, and the healthcare workers (HCWs).

Universal screening by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of nasopharyngeal swabs has been proposed as the optimal approach [3-6]. However, limited testing supplies and laboratory workforce may prevent its application in some clinical settings [7]. In addition, although a rapid laboratory testing has been developed [6], most hospitals rely on standard tests with a 5 to 24 hour-turn-around time [8, 9]. This may be a problem when caring for a laboring woman in whom delivery can occur before the RT-PCR result is available.

A targeted screening guided by a structured questionnaire may represent a feasible and valid alternative [5, 10, 11]. Yet, this approach has been questioned due to evidence of high rates of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the obstetric population [4, 6, 12, 13]. However, only major respiratory symptoms were assessed in these studies. Since minor symptoms, such as loss of smell or taste, have been described at earlier stages of infection and also as isolated symptoms in milder forms of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) [14-20], the possibility of some women being erroneously classified as asymptomatic in these reports has to be considered.

Here we report our data on the use of a comprehensive admission questionnaire for obstetric patients, including both major and minor symptoms of infection as well as high-risk contacts and living environment. Accuracy of the questionnaire in the context of both a targeted and a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs in two consecutive periods of the outbreak is assessed and discussed herein.

Secondary objective of the study was the assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among the HCWs involved in patients’ management.

Material and methods

This was a prospective cohort study of all women admitted to the Obstetric Unit of MBBM Foundation at San Gerardo Hospital and Vittore Buzzi Hospital during pregnancy or the postpartum period from March 16th to May 22nd, 2020.

These hospitals are located in the Milan area, Lombardy region, Northern Italy, and perform approximately 5,600 deliveries per year. Since the beginning of March, strict lockdown measures were in place in this geographic area, which entered a deceleration phase of the outbreak in mid-April [1].

Starting on March 16th, a comprehensive questionnaire including both major and minor symptoms of infection and high-risk contacts in the last 14 days as well as a high-risk living environment (i.e., immigration centers, drug rehabilitation centers) was administered to all women at hospital admission (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Admission questionnaire.

Adapted from Poon et al. [11].

The questionnaire was deemed positive when at least one positive answer was present. Support persons (one for each woman) were also screened by means of the questionnaire, and refused hospital access in case of a positive result. Both patients and their support persons were given surgical masks and asked to wear them during their hospital stay; they were also instructed to practice frequent hand sanitization. In addition, all HCWs involved in women’s care underwent questionnaire assessment (section A) at the beginning of every shift and wore a surgical mask for the entire shift duration, unless different PPE were required, as means of source control [21, 22].

Initially, a targeted SARS-CoV-2 screening approach triggered by a positive questionnaire and based on RT-PCR testing of nasopharyngeal swabs was used in women with hospital admission after accessing the Emergency Department. In turn, a universal screening was applied to all patients with scheduled admission (i.e., elective pre-labor cesarean section). On April 8th, we changed our policy and started testing all women for SARS-CoV-2 infection independent of the type of hospital admission and the questionnaire result, in agreement with a disposition of the Lombardy Region Health Care Authority.

Cases with scheduled admission underwent RT-PCR testing 24–48 hours in advance in a designated drive-through testing center so results would be available at the time of hospital access to guide isolation measures and use of PPE. Instead, questionnaire results were used for this purpose in cases of unscheduled admission: women with a positive questionnaire were classified as persons under investigation (PUI) and managed accordingly while nucleic acid test results were pending, whereas women with a negative questionnaire were considered not at risk until the result of the RT-PCR test was available.

Nasopharyngeal sampling was performed by a trained resident physician or midwife in appropriate PPE using dedicated swabs. Samples were transferred to the laboratory and processed by RT-PCR testing SARS-CoV-2 with the automated ELITe InGenius system and the GeneFinder COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit assay, according to manufacturer’s instructions. This assay targets three genes, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, nucleocapsid protein, and envelope membrane protein, with high specificity. Test results were available in 5 to 24 hours and scored as “positive” or “negative” in both hospitals [9].

Viral testing was also performed in all HCWs involved in patients’ management.

The accuracy of the questionnaire to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in both study periods (March 16th to April 7th and April 8th to May 22nd) was tested by constructing a 2x2 table and calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio (sensitivity/1-specificity), and negative likelihood ratio (1-sensitivity/specificity).

The study was approved by the IRB of the University of Milan-Bicocca and the University of Milan (#15408/2020). A written informed consent was obtained for all women involved in the study.

Results

A total of 1,177 women were assessed at hospital admission by the questionnaire during the study period (n = 447 at MBBM Foundation at San Gerardo Hospital and n = 730 at Vittore Buzzi Hospital). Nine-hundred and forty-five (80.3%) women were admitted to the L&D unit, whereas 196 (16.7%) and 36 (3.0%) women to the antepartum and postpartum unit, respectively.

Of the 1,177 patients assessed, 865 (73.5%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab and 51 (5.9%) were positive.

Between March 16th and April 7th, RT-PCR testing was performed in 129 out of 441 patients. Questionnaire was positive on admission in 63 (14.3%) women. Among the 319 patients with unscheduled admission and a negative questionnaire, 7 (2.2%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 during hospitalization because of onset of fever. All of them were negative.

SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed in 29 mothers, 4 (13.8%) of whom had a negative questionnaire. One of these 4 patients failed to report high-risk contacts (i.e., fever and cough in close family members a few days before admission). An additional 2 women revealed symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring more than 2 weeks but within one month before admission. None of the 4 patients developed symptoms during hospitalization.

After implementing universal viral screening, we identified 67/736 positive questionnaires. Nasopharyngeal swab analysis by RT-PCR recognized 22 (3%, 95% CI 1.94% - 4.04%) cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Questionnaire was negative in 13 (59.1%) of them, for a rate of infection among asymptomatic women of 1.9%. Four out of these 13 women reported loss of taste or smell more than 14 days but within one month before admission. None of the 13 patients developed symptoms during hospitalization.

Accuracy of the questionnaire to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in both study periods is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Accuracy of the admission questionnaire in the two study periods.

First study period (March 16th–April 7th, 2020)
- Targeted SARS-CoV-2 screening -
	Positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2	Negative RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2	Total
Positive questionnaire	25	38	63
Negative questionnaire	4 *	55	59
Total	29	93	122
• Sensitivity = 25/29, 86.2%; specificity = 55/93, 59.1%
• Positive predictive value = 25/63, 39.7%; negative predictive value = 55/59, 93.2%
• Positive likelihood ratio = 2.11; negative likelihood ratio = 0.23
Second study period (April 8th–May 22nd, 2020)
- Universal SARS-CoV-2 screening -
	Positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2	Negative RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2	Total
Positive questionnaire	9	58	67
Negative questionnaire	13 #	656	669
Total	22	714	736
• Sensitivity = 9/22, 40.9%; specificity = 656/714, 91.9%
• Positive predictive value = 9/67, 13.4%; negative predictive value = 656/669, 98.1%
• Positive likelihood ratio = 5.13; negative likelihood ratio = 0.64

* One patient failed to report exposure to high-risk contacts a few days before admission, and two patients reported fever and dry cough (n = 1) and loss of smell and taste (n = 1) more than 14 days but within 30 days before admission.

# Four patients reported loss of smell or taste more than 14 days but within 30 days before admission.

Detailed assessment of positive questionnaires showed that fever ≥ 37.5°C was the most common positive item (42.3%), followed by high-risk contacts/living environment (30.8%), cough (25.4%), gastrointestinal symptoms (13.8%), and loss of smell or taste (11.5%) (Fig 2A).

Fig 2

Distribution of positive questionnaire items among women with a positive questionnaire on admission (A) and with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing (B) during the study period. Fever was considered for values ≥37.5°C; shortness of breath was defined as oxygen saturation <95% or respiratory rate >22/min; GI (gastrointestinal) symptoms included loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; high-risk contacts refer to high-risk occupation, contact with a known or suspected COVID-19 case and high-risk living environment. Period I: from March 16th to April 7th, 2020; Period II: from April 8th to May 22nd, 2020.

Fever and cough were more commonly identified during the first study period compared to the second one (57.1% versus 23.4% and 30.2% versus 20.9%, respectively), whereas gastrointestinal symptoms displayed an opposite trend (7.9% versus 19.4%). Rate of olfactory and taste disorders, as well as of high-risk contacts/living environment, remained stable over time.

Of the fifteen women who reported loss of smell or taste within 14 days before admission, this was the only positive questionnaire item in three. Also, when the time-frame of investigation was extended to the last 30 days before admission, an additional five mothers were identified with isolated olfactory or taste disorders. All these eight patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Frequency and time-trend of positive questionnaire items among SARS-CoV-2 infected women is shown in Fig 2B.

There were 307 HCWs involved in patients’ management in both hospitals during the overall study period. Eighteen of them (5.8%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. There were no cases of moderate or severe COVID-19.

Discussion

Our study investigated the accuracy of a comprehensive questionnaire thoroughly assessing obstetric patients upon hospital admission to identify cases suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Differently from previous reports [4, 6–8, 13], our questionnaire evaluated the presence of not only major respiratory symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath, but also minor symptoms, such as loss of smell or taste, as well as high-risk contacts during the last two weeks preceding admission.

We observed a negative predictive value for SARS-CoV-2 infection of 93.2% and 98.1% in the context of a targeted and a universal viral screening, respectively, in two consecutive periods of the outbreak. In addition, we identified a low rate of viral infection among the HCWs involved in women’s care [23-25].

The ability of accurately discriminating women at low risk for infection is pivotal in case of both a targeted and a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening. In clinical settings with no ability to perform a universal testing, a well-performing admission questionnaire can adequately guide a targeted screening approach and still allow protection of the patients and the HCWs. On the other hand, when a universal screening approach is feasible, the questionnaire allows appropriate patients’ cohorting and application of isolation measures and contact precautions while RT-PCR results are pending. This is particularly important to prevent potential viral spread to other patients and HCWs and mother-to-child transmission when caring for laboring women, in whom delivery can occur before nucleic acid test results are available. In fact, turn-around time of RT-PCR testing is usually >5 hours in most facilities [8, 9] and availability of rapid testing is limited [6].

Much of the push for implementation of a universal screening with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR hinges on avoiding unintended exposures to HCWs when caring for an asymptomatic patient, especially in geographic areas with a high community prevalence of COVID-19 [26, 27]. Our hospitals are located in the epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in Italy [1, 2]. Nonetheless, we had only 1.9% asymptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 positive women during the universal screening period. This rate is 7 times lower than that reported by other centers in similarly hardly hit areas, such as New York City [4, 6]. A different phase of the outbreak during the study period may have contributed to this difference [1, 28]. However, our detailed investigation of minor symptoms, such as loss of smell or taste, may also have played an important role [3, 29]. Olfactory and taste disorders have been reported as the only symptoms of infection in up to 17% of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals, and to display a higher predictive ability of having the virus than fever or persistent cough [16, 18, 19]. Isolated loss of smell or taste was identified in 15.7% of our virally infected patients. In addition, frequency of olfactory and taste disorders did not differ between the two study periods, whereas that of fever and cough displayed a substantial reduction (Fig 2A and 2B). These data suggest that patients’ assessment upon admission during an outbreak by a novel air-tract pathogen should include not only major respiratory but also minor symptoms, especially in the more advanced phases of the outbreak.

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity at more than 2 weeks from symptom onset has been reported in infected individuals [30, 31]. Overall, we identified 51 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and in 17 (33.3%) questionnaire upon admission was deemed negative. However, 6 (35.3%) of these patients reported symptoms suggestive of infection more than 14 but within 30 days before hospital admission. Had the questionnaire investigated a one-month time-frame, negative predictive values would have increased to 98.2% and 98.6% in the targeted and the universal viral screening period, respectively. Of note, whether such patients would have been infectious and thus able to spread the virus at the time of admission is still a matter of debate [32-36]. Similarly, the infectiousness of fully asymptomatic women with positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results is unclear [31, 33, 36–38]. Unfortunately, we could not address this issue in our patients since we did not perform viral culture experiments [33, 34]. Nonetheless, independent of the infectiousness potential of these women, widespread use of face masks and frequent hand sanitization have likely contributed to successful viral spread control in our units [21, 22].

Strengths of our study are the following. First, it was conducted in two large teaching hospitals in the Italian epicenter of the outbreak, thus providing useful data for equally affected areas. Second, it investigated the questionnaire’s performance in the context of both a targeted and a universal viral screening approach in two consecutive periods of the outbreak. Third, it assessed the universal screening approach over a 6-week time period, which may have allowed to better capture the real trend of infection over time among obstetric patients than much shorter study periods [4, 6, 8].

Admission questionnaires may have limitations since they rely on honest answering. The possibility of patients being not completely sincere due to fear of isolation measures, especially in laboring women, has to be considered. This event occurred in at least one woman in our cohort. Addition of objective, point-of-care parameters, such as lymphocyte count and lung ultrasound, to the admission screening procedure to increase its accuracy may be worth exploring [7, 10, 27, 31, 39–41].

Another limitation of our study is that SARS-CoV-2 testing by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs was performed in a targeted manner during the first study period, thus leading to 312 untested women. This also prevented a meaningful comparison of infection rates between the two study periods with a targeted and a universal SARS-CoV-2 testing approach, respectively.

Conclusions

With recognition that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is unlikely to be justifiable [26], decisions regarding universal viral testing should be made in the context of regional prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as financial and human resources and PPE availability in each obstetric unit.

Our data show that thorough assessment of obstetric patients upon hospital admission by means of an exhaustive questionnaire is feasible and effective in discriminating women at low risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the context of both a targeted and a universal screening approach. Extension of the investigated time-frame from 14 to 30 days may be worth considering to increase the questionnaire’s performance, especially in this high-risk population. The question remains whether this group of women, as well as of those SARS-CoV-2 positive but fully asymptomatic, represents an actual source of viral spread.

18 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-23463

Performance of an extended triage questionnaire to detect suspected cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in obstetric patients: experience from two large teaching hospitals in Lombardy, Northern Italy.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.ssa Ornaghi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 06 September. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Di Gennaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

I appreciate a lot your manuscript.

Follow the reviewer suggestions to improve your article.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors sought to assess the performance of an extended questionnaire in identifying cases of SARS COV-2 infection among obstetric patients.

This study was conducted in two of the biggest birth centers in the epicenter of pandemic in Italy (Lombardy).

They individuated two study periods:

- in the first period the RT-PCR test on nasopharyngeal swabs was targeted on the base of a positive questionnaire.

- in the second study period, a universal approach was applied.

- in both study periods the questionnaire was administered to every patients

I found the argument of particular interest because I think it's laudable the effort of trying to include also minor symptoms, that were not initially included in the official questionnaire proposed by the main institution (ISUOG and regional normative in Lombardy).

The questionnaire is also a good alternative for those contexts in which a universal RT-PCR approach is not feasible for limited resources.

This is the reason why I ask for Minor Revision to this paper.

Here are my suggestions:

Abstract

- results, page 2 line 36-41:

I will rewrite in this way: after universal testing implementation, there were 22 infected mothers, 13 (59%) of them had a negative questionnaire.

Methods

I propose to perform ROC curve to assess the performance of the questionnaire in the "universal approach" period.

Discussion

I would add in the discussion (page 14 lines 269-274) that one limit of the study is that the RT-PCR on nasopharingeal swabs was not performed in all the women that fulfilled the questionnaire (865/1,177).

Reviewer #2: August 2020

Review- Performance of an extended triage questionnaire to detect suspected cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome Corovavirus 2 infection obstetric patients: experience from two large teaching hospitals in Lombardy, Northern Italy

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

This study explores the plausibility of a questionnaire in the screening of obstetric patients for Covid.

Since the beginning of 2020 Covid has brought turmoil over the entire globe and health care systems are seeking ways to confront many issues that came with it, both in patient care and in safe guarding health care workers.

Abstract

Should be revised with a native speaker.

Introduction

Well written.

Methods

Well written.

Results

Well written, clearly understood.

Discussion

Well written, I would add a section of limitations. The author do write regarding the problem of bias in the answers, but do not address the different rates of positive swabs- 29/122 in the first time period versus 22/736 in the second. There are different explanations for this, the first is the increase in swabs preformed- meaning that the 22 positive were just the tip of the iceberg and the questionnaire has a larger false negative than expected. The second is a change in the infection rate in general. Please address these points.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Annalisa Inversetti

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yael Baumfeld

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Aug 2020

Dear Referees:

Thank you for the strong positive comments on the first submission of our manuscript. We also appreciate the helpful suggestions as to how we might further improve the paper. Below we respond to each suggestion with details about how we amended the manuscript.

Response to Referees.

Response to Referee 1.

We appreciate the comments from Referee 1 suggesting our study was of particular interest due to inclusion of minor symptoms in the proposed screening questionnaire. We agree this is extremely important to improve screening efficiency for SARS-CoV-2 infection among obstetric patients at hospital admission.

The Referee asked to rewrite a sentence of the Abstract reporting results of the universal screening period. We addressed this request (Abstract section, Line 36-38).

Referee 1 proposes to perform a ROC curve analysis to assess the questionnaire performance during the study period when a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening approach was implemented.

We thank the reviewer for this comment; however, since the proposed screening questionnaire has a dichotomous result (positive/negative), the most appropriate way of evaluating its accuracy is by calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values in a two-by-two table (as reported in Table 1, Line 182). In turn, a ROC curve analysis with calculation of the area under the curve (AUC) is a more effective measure of assessing a test accuracy when the test generates ordinal or continuous results; sensitivity and specificity can be then computed across all the possible threshold values and vary across the different thresholds [1, 2].

The Referee suggests to specify that a limitation of our study is that RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection was not performed in all women screened by the questionnaire. We appreciate this comment and it has now been addressed in the Discussion section, Line 280-282.

Response to Referee 2.

We thank the Referee for the positive comments on our manuscript.

The abstract has now been revised.

Referee 2 suggests to add a section on limitations of our work. This has been done in the Discussion section, Line 280-283.

References

1. Søreide K. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis in diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarker research. Journal of clinical pathology. 2009;62(1):1-5. Epub 2008/09/27. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2008.061010. PubMed PMID: 18818262.

2. Hulley S, Cummings S, Browner W, Grady D, Newman T. Designing Clinical Research. Fourth ed: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Wolters Kluwer; 2013.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Sep 2020

Performance of an extended triage questionnaire to detect suspected cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in obstetric patients: experience from two large teaching hospitals in Lombardy, Northern Italy.

PONE-D-20-23463R1

Dear Dr.ssa Sara Ornaghi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francesco Di Gennaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

congratulations for your manuscript that now can be accept!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is interesting and all comments have been answered fully.

I recommend accepting it for publication

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Annalisa Inversetti

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yael Baumfeld

7 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-23463R1

Performance of an extended triage questionnaire to detect suspected cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in obstetric patients: experience from two large teaching hospitals in Lombardy, Northern Italy.

Dear Dr. Ornaghi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Francesco Di Gennaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE