ArticleHealth science reports2026
Agreement Between Self-Reported COVID-19 and Dried Blood Spot Serology: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Identifying COVID-19 cases with high accuracy is essential for epidemiological research on the pandemic's health effects. We aimed to investigate the agreement between a validated self-report questionnaire for COVID-19 and dried blood spot serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of combined survey and SARS-CoV-2 antibody data. Between June and October 2023, 311 adults completed a validated self-report COVID-19 questionnaire and provided fingertip blood samples, which underwent Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay to quantify IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-proteins. We applied several statistical approaches to assess agreement: Cohen's κ of inter-rater reliability; positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values; and logistic and linear regressions of the year of most recent self-reported COVID-19 on serostatus and N-protein antibody concentrations. Results: Two-thirds (203, 65%) of participants self-reported a history of COVID-19 whereas one-third (98, 32%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 N-protein antibodies, reflecting only "fair" agreement (κ = 0.23 [95% CI 0.15-0.31]). Self-reported COVID-19 had a PPV of 41% and an NPV of 87% for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. PPV was low for those whose most recent self-reported cases were in 2020-21 (36%) and 2022 (33%), but higher for 2023 (75%). Compared to participants with no self-reported history of COVID-19, those reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2023 had 23 times greater odds of being seropositive (95% CI: 9.18-62.5) and had 1078% (617-1836%) higher N-protein concentrations, after adjustment for confounders. Conclusion: While overall agreement self-reported COVID-19 and serostatus is only fair, there was a strong relationship exhibited between the two for recent self-reported cases, when serology is most accurate. This suggests that self-reported COVID-19 is reasonably accurate for identifying people who have previously had COVID-19 as well as determining roughly when infections occurred.
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.