ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2022
Improvements in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing Cascade in the United States: Data From Serial Cross-sectional Assessments.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Narrative Review on the Recent Insights Into the Pathogenicity and Potential Role of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in the Emergence of "Disease X".Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 transmission with a novel outpatient sentinel surveillance system in Chicago, USA.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Nucleic Acid Point-of-Care Testing to Improve Diagnostic Preparedness.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
- Systematic Approach to Address Early Pandemic's Diagnostic Unmet Needs.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing is critical for monitoring case counts, early detection and containment of infection, clinical management, and surveillance of variants. However, community-based data on the access, uptake, and barriers to testing have been lacking.
methodsWe conducted serial cross-sectional online surveys covering demographics, coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms, and experiences around SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing to characterize the SARS-CoV-2 testing cascade and associated barriers across 10 US states (California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin), from July 2020 to February 2021.
resultsIn February 2021, across 10 US states, 895 respondents (11%) reported wanting a diagnostic test in the prior 2 weeks, 63% of whom were tested, with limited variability across states. Almost all (97%) who were tested received their results; 56% received their results within 2 days. In Maryland, Florida, and Illinois, where serial data were available at 4 time points, 56% were tested the same day they wanted or needed a test in February 2021, compared with 28% in July 2020, and 45% received results the same day, compared with 17% in July 2020. Wanting a test was significantly more common among younger, nonwhite respondents and participants with a history of symptoms or exposure. Logistical challenges, including not knowing where to go, were the most frequently cited barriers.
conclusionsThere were significant improvements in access and turnaround times across US states, yet barriers to testing remained consistent across states, underscoring the importance of a continued focus on testing, even amidst mass vaccination campaigns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.