ArticlePloS one2025
Concordance between self-reported SARS-CoV-2 positivity and laboratory-confirmed positivity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the use and availability of at-home antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection have increased, the number of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections that are reported to state COVID-19 surveillance systems have decreased. Self-reported infection dates are critical to accurately track incidence and outbreaks of COVID-19 and for continued research on illness progression; however, the reliability of self-reported infection dates is unknown to date. To assess accuracy of self-reported test dates, we utilized self-reported SARS-CoV-2 testing data from the Arizona CoVHORT Study (CoVHORT) and laboratory-confirmed testing data collected by the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and calculated the difference in days between dates to examine their percent agreement. We used logistic regression to assess if any participant characteristics were associated with self-reporting a test date >7 days different than the laboratory confirmed date. A total of 1,900 CoVHORT participants aged 18 years or older were included in our analyses. Most participants (82.5%) reported a test date within 7 days of the laboratory confirmed date of their illness. Increasing age and number of weeks between testing positive and self-reporting the test date were both significantly associated with a difference of 7 days or greater between dates. There was an 84% increase (OR=1.84, 95% CI = 1.11-3.06) in likelihood of inaccurately self-reporting their SARS-CoV-2 test date for participants aged 55 years and older and a 2% increase (OR=1.02, 95% CI = 1.02-1.03) for each elapsed week following their SARS-CoV-2 test. We observed an 82% percent agreement (dates within 7 days of each other) between self-reported and laboratory confirmed test dates, suggesting that self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test dates are sufficient for identifying and tracking Long COVID or Post-COVID Conditions when a laboratory-confirmed test date is not available. However, increasing age and greater time between test date and date of self-report were found to decrease the agreement between self-reported and laboratory confirmed test dates.
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.