ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing data sources for U.S. COVID-19 public health surveillance, 2020-2024.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing data were collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for surveillance during the COVID-19 pandemic response. Understanding how these existing data correlate and diverge can help guide their use and interpretation. Method: We evaluated COVID-19 Electronic Laboratory Reporting (CELR), the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS), Increasing Community Access to Testing, Treatment and Response (ICATT) program, and commercial laboratory data from 2020 to 2024. SARS-CoV-2 testing volume, viral activity, and viral activity trends were calculated for each source during periods marked by key events. Key events included Delta and Omicron variant emergence, at-home testing availability, and public health emergency conclusion. Viral activity was characterized by percent positivity, the median percent of tests positive for SARS-CoV-2. Viral activity trends were measured using Spearman's correlation coefficients of normalized percent positivity between NREVSS and each of the data sources, along with match rates between the two sources from weekly trajectory categorization (increasing, stable, decreasing) comparisons. Results: SARS-CoV-2 testing volume decreased across time, most notably since January 2022. Viral activity measures showed that CELR (8.4%) and NREVSS (7.7%) had lower median weekly percent positivity compared to ICATT (18.5%) and commercial laboratories (11.0%). Viral activity trends between NREVSS and CELR ( Discussion: ICATT and commercial laboratory data sources consistently reported higher activity levels than CELR and NREVSS, suggesting differences in testing and care-seeking among the underlying populations represented, and the effects of varying reporting practices over time. However, trend correlations with NREVSS were high and few differences were observed in week-to-week trajectories. While these findings may be in part due to overlap in data sources, they also suggest that viral activity trends were relatively consistent across sources. A broad set of laboratory-based surveillance data sources effectively captured trends in SARS-CoV-2 circulation despite the evolving nature of testing and reporting during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.