ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2023
Estimating the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Costa Rica: modelling seroprevalence data in a population-based cohort.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2023. 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 population-based case-control study of COVID-19: methodological considerations on the role of testing bias.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Estimation of the Burden of Ischemic Heart Disease in the Tabasco Population, Mexico, 2013-2021.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Observational
- SARS-CoV-2 antibody and neutralization dynamics among persons with natural- and vaccine-induced exposures.PloS one · 2025Article
- COVID-19 and long-term impact on symptoms and Health-Related Quality of Life in Costa Rica: the RESPIRA cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Cohort profile: evaluation of immune response and household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Costa Rica: the RESPIRA study.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The true incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Costa Rica was likely much higher than officially reported, because infection is often associated with mild symptoms and testing was limited by official guidelines and socio-economic factors. Methods: Using serology to define natural infection, we developed a statistical model to estimate the true cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in Costa Rica early in the pandemic. We estimated seroprevalence from 2223 blood samples collected from November 2020 to October 2021 from 1976 population-based controls from the RESPIRA study. Samples were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and the receptor-binding-domain of the spike proteins. Using a generalized linear model, we estimated the ratio of true infections to officially reported cases. Applying these ratios to officially reported totals by age, sex, and geographic area, we estimated the true number of infections in the study area, where 70% of Costa Ricans reside. We adjusted the seroprevalence estimates for antibody decay over time, estimated from 1562 blood samples from 996 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases. Findings: The estimated total proportion infected ( Interpretation: Our findings suggest that nearly half the population had been infected by the end of 2021. By the end of 2022, it is likely that a large majority of the population had been infected. Funding: This work was sponsored and funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through the National Cancer Institute, the Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications Ministry of Costa Rica, and Costa Rican Biomedical Research Agency-Fundacion INCIENSA (grant N/A).
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.