Clinical sensitivity and interpretation of PCR and serological COVID‐19 diagnostics for patients presenting to the hospital
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The diagnosis of COVID‐19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. We conducted a single‐center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR‐positive SARS‐CoV‐2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70%‐71% from Days 9 to 11, and 30% at Day 21. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR‐positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies. In contrast to PCR, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after Day 7, >80% after Day 12, and 100% by Day 21. Taken together, PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time‐dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
We aligned cases and seroprevalence on the basis of individual record data suggesting that exposure to a laboratory-confirmed case was typically 10-13 days and exposure to seroconversion was 14-17 days.
“We aligned cases and seroprevalence on the basis of individual record data suggesting that exposure to a laboratory-confirmed case was typically 10–13 days36 and exposure to seroconversion was 14–17 days.37, 38, 39”
From Estimating global, regional, and national daily and cumulative infections with SARS-CoV-2 through Nov 14, 2021: a statistical analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [38]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019
Wölfel, R., Corman, V. M., Guggemos, W., Seilmaier, M., Zange, S., Müller, M. A., Niemeyer, D., Jones, T. C., Vollmar, P., Rothe, C., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x · Cited by 6,661 · see citing works
Lauer, S. A., Grantz, K. H., Bi, Q., Jones, F. K., Zheng, Q., Meredith, H. R., Azman, A. S., Reich, N. G., & Lessler, J. (2020) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m20-0504 · Cited by 5,970 · see citing works
Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients With Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019
Zhao, J., Yuan, Q., Wang, H., Liu, W., Liao, X., Su, Y., Wang, X., Yuan, J., Li, T., Li, J., et al. (2020) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa344 · Cited by 2,607 · see citing works
Human neutralizing antibodies elicited by SARS-CoV-2 infection
Ju, B., Zhang, Q., Ge, J., Wang, R., Sun, J., Ge, X., Yu, J., Shan, S., Zhou, B., Song, S., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2380-z · Cited by 1,667 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barber, R. M., Sorensen, R. J. D., Pigott, D. M., Bisignano, C., Carter, A., Amlag, J. O., Collins, J. K., Abbafati, C., Adolph, C., Allorant, A., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00484-6 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
An adversarial training framework for mitigating algorithmic biases in clinical machine learning
Yang, J., Soltan, A. A. S., Eyre, D. W., Yang, Y., & Clifton, D. A. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00805-y · Cited by 159 · see citing works
COVID-19 spread, detection, and dynamics in Bogota, Colombia
Laajaj, R., De Los Rios, C., Sarmiento-Barbieri, I., Aristizabal, D., Behrentz, E., Bernal, R., Buitrago, G., Cucunubá, Z., de la Hoz, F., Gaviria, A., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25038-z · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- Miller, T. E., Garcia Beltran, W. F., Bard, A. Z., Gogakos, T., Anahtar, M. N., Astudillo, M. G., Yang, D., Thierauf, J., Fisch, A. S., Mahowald, G. K., Fitzpatrick, M. J., Nardi, V., Feldman, J., Hauser, B. M., Caradonna, T. M., Marble, H. D., Ritterhouse, L. L., Turbett, S. E., Batten, J., Georgantas, N. Z., Alter, G., Schmidt, A. G., Harris, J. B., Gelfand, J. A., Poznansky, M. C., Bernstein, B. E., Louis, D. N., Dighe, A., Charles, R. C., Ryan, E. T., Branda, J. A., Pierce, V. M., Murali, M. R., Iafrate, A. J., Rosenberg, E. S., & Lennerz, J. K.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Department of Pathology Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA
- Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lennerz, Jochen K.
- ORCID
- Miller, Tyler E.
- Bard, Adam Z.
- Gogakos, Tasos
- Anahtar, Melis N.
- Yang, Diane
- Thierauf, Julia
- Fisch, Adam S.
- Mahowald, Grace K.
- Fitzpatrick, Megan J.
- Nardi, Valentina
- Feldman, Jared
- Hauser, Blake M.
- Caradonna, Timothy M.
- Marble, Hetal D.
- Ritterhouse, Lauren L.
- Alter, Galit
- Schmidt, Aaron G.
- Harris, Jason B.
- Gelfand, Jeffrey A.
- Poznansky, Mark C.
- Bernstein, Bradley E.
- Louis, David N.
- Dighe, Anand
- Charles, Richelle C.
- Ryan, Edward T.
- Branda, John A.
- Pierce, Virginia M.
- Iafrate, A. John
- Rosenberg, Eric S.
- Lennerz, Jochen K.
- Venue
- The FASEB Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-08-28
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 13877-13884
- ISSN
- 0892-6638 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-6860
- PMC
- PMC7461169
- OpenAlex
- W3080808978
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 14
- FWCI
- 4.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The FASEB Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI146779)
- National Institutes of Health (RO1 CA225655, R01 AI146779)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U01CK000490)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM007753)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, PCR diagnosis, serological diagnosis, diagnostic sensitivity, clinical course, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, test interpretation, hospitalized patients, viral clearance, immune response
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing, COVID-19 Serological Testing, Antibodies, Viral, Female, Hospitals, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review