• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

PLoS One . Concordance between self-reported SARS-CoV-2 positivity and laboratory-confirmed positivity

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
PLoS One


. 2025 Oct 17;20(10):e0334102.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334102. eCollection 2025. Concordance between self-reported SARS-CoV-2 positivity and laboratory-confirmed positivity

Collin James Catalfamo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Elizabeth T Jacobs[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Laura P Falk[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Priscilla Lauro[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Kacey C Ernst[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Leslie V Farland[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Kelly M Heslin[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Kristen Pogreba-Brown[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Pamela C Garcia-Filion[SUP] 4 [/SUP]



Affiliations
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.


 
Back
Top Bottom