Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 712

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interpreting a covid-19 test result

Open access
Watson, Jessica, Whiting, Penny F, Brush, John E·2020·BMJ

Abstract

What you need to know• Interpreting the result of a test for covid-19 depends on two things: the accuracy of the test, and the pre-test probability or estimated risk of disease before testing • A positive RT-PCR test for covid-19 test has more weight than a negative test because of the test's high specificity but moderate sensitivity • A single negative covid-19 test should not be used as a rule-out in patients with strongly suggestive symptoms • Clinicians should share information with patients about the accuracy of covid-19 testsAcross the world there is a clamour for covid-19 testing, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, encouraging countries to "test, test, test." 1 The availability of the complete genome of covid-19 early in the epidemic facilitated development of tests to detect viral RNA. 2 Multiple assays with different gene targets have been developed using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).3 These viral RNA tests use samples usually obtained from the respiratory tract by nasopharyngeal swab, to detect current infections.Serology blood tests to detect antibodies indicating past infection are being developed; these will not be considered in depth in this article.Testing for covid-19 enables infected individuals to be identified and isolated to reduce spread, 4 allows contact tracing for exposed individuals, 5 and provides knowledge of regional and national rates of infection to inform public health interventions.However, questions remain on how to apply test results to make optimal decisions about individual patients. Search strategyThis article was produced at speed to address an urgent need to address uncertainties in testing for covid-19.We searched Pubmed using the terms "covid", "SARS-CoV-2", "sensitivity", "specificity", "diagnosis", "test", and "PCR", and KSR evidence using terms for covid and test.This was supplemented by discussion with colleagues undertaking formal systematic reviews into covid-19 diagnosis.Practice PRACTICE 10.1136/

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.m1808

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 712

Metadata

Authors
Watson, J., Whiting, P. F., & Brush, J. E.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-05-12
Volume
369
Pages
m1808
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3025391403
Cited by
712
References
3
FWCI
20.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpreting a covid-19 test result. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.m1808
The paper
Watson, J., Whiting, P. F., & Brush, J. E. (2020). Interpreting a covid-19 test result. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1808

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.