Health and Healthcare Systems

How accurate are coronavirus tests? 

Coronavirus tests are seen at the Barrand medical laboratory in Colmar, as the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues in France, April 16, 2020. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann - RC2S5G9O5PEU

WHO has been encouraging countries to “test, test, test”. Image: REUTERS/Christian Hartmann

Jessica Watson
GP and NIHR Doctoral Senior Clinical Research Fellow,, University of Bristol
Penny Whiting
Associate Professor in Clinical Epidemiology, University of Bristol
Share:
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Health and Healthcare Systems?
The Big Picture
Explore and monitor how Global Health is affecting economies, industries and global issues
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:

Global Health

  • Testing has been at the forefront of the international response to combat coronavirus, but for some countries, notably the UK, it has been the source of much frustration and confusion.
  • Speculation surrounds how effective the coronavirus tests are.
  • Researchers from the UK's University of Bristol explain the accuracy of the two main types of coronavirus test, and why it matters for policymakers.

Coronavirus testing has been the subject of huge interest, frustration and confusion. The UK has come under worldwide criticism for its lack of mass testing, despite the director general of WHO encouraging countries to “test, test, test”. Health Secretary Matt Hancock announced that the UK now aims to test 100,000 people a dayfor COVID-19 by the end of April.

Have you read?

There are two main types of COVID-19 tests. Swab tests, which usually take a sample from the throat or nose, to detect viral RNA. These determine if you currently have COVID-19. Blood tests, which detect antibodies, can determine if you have had COVID-19, and are therefore immune.

No test is 100% accurate. Although tests can perform well in ideal laboratory conditions, in real life lots of other factors affect accuracy including the timing of the test, how the swab was taken, and the handling of the specimen.

Early on in the novel coronavirus outbreak, doctors started reporting cases of people who had coronavirus which had been missed by swab tests – also known as “false negatives”. We don’t know for sure how often these false negatives occur in the UK, but evidence from China suggests up to 30 out of every 100 people with coronavirus might test negative.

The meaning of a test result for an person depends not only on the accuracy of the test, but also on the estimated risk of disease before testing. This was described mathematically by Thomas Bayes and later explained by Siddhartha Mukherjee as the law that “a strong intuition is much more powerful than a weak test”.

Let’s explain this with an example. Jane works for the NHS as a receptionist in a GP surgery in London, in an area of high rates of coronavirus infection. After noticing a loss of smell for a few days, she wakes up one night feeling shivery, with a dry cough. She checks her temperature to see it’s 38.5°C. However, after getting a swab test, the result comes back negative for COVID-19. Great news. Or is it?

Doctors use their experience to recognise patterns in symptoms, risk factors, and signs to estimate the likelihood of infection before testing. This is known as “pre-test probability”. Based on her symptoms, the probability that Jane has COVID-19 will be high – perhaps 80%.

However, let’s say 100 people experiencing symptoms like Jane have a swab test. Of these people, 80 actually have COVID-19. A positive test means we can be pretty certain someone has COVID-19. But if the test misses 30% of those 80 people with COVID-19, this means an estimated 24 out of 100 people will have a “false negative” test result. This means these people might go back to work and unknowingly spread coronavirus to others.

tests testing antibodies Coronavirus china virus health healthcare who world health organization disease deaths pandemic epidemic worries concerns Health virus contagious contagion viruses diseases disease lab laboratory doctor health dr nurse medical medicine drugs vaccines vaccinations inoculations technology testing test medicinal biotechnology biotech biology chemistry physics microscope research influenza flu cold common cold bug risk symptomes respiratory china iran italy europe asia america south america north washing hands wash hands coughs sneezes spread spreading precaution precautions health warning covid 19 cov SARS 2019ncov wuhan sarscow wuhanpneumonia  pneumonia outbreak patients unhealthy fatality mortality elderly old elder age serious death deathly deadly
Based on the assumption that swabs tests correctly identify 70% of those with COVID-19 (sensitivity) and 95% of those without COVID-19 (specificity). Image: Jessica Watson/ Penny Whiting

These numbers change depending on who is tested. If we test people with fewer symptoms, the likelihood of coronavirus or “pre-test probability” is lower. If only ten in 100 people tested actually have COVID-19, and 30% are missed by the test, this will mean only three in 100 people tested will have a “false negative”, compared to 86 “true negatives”. So if you have fewer symptoms and test negative, you can be more assured you don’t actually have COVID-19. But if you have typical symptoms of coronavirus, then it’s safest to assume that you have the disease, even if your test is negative.

tests testing antibodies Coronavirus china virus health healthcare who world health organization disease deaths pandemic epidemic worries concerns Health virus contagious contagion viruses diseases disease lab laboratory doctor health dr nurse medical medicine drugs vaccines vaccinations inoculations technology testing test medicinal biotechnology biotech biology chemistry physics microscope research influenza flu cold common cold bug risk symptomes respiratory china iran italy europe asia america south america north washing hands wash hands coughs sneezes spread spreading precaution precautions health warning covid 19 cov SARS 2019ncov wuhan sarscow wuhanpneumonia  pneumonia outbreak patients unhealthy fatality mortality elderly old elder age serious death deathly deadly
Actual results compared to pre-test probability. Image: Jessica Watson/ Penny Whiting

Antibody blood tests are also being developed. These could help us find out who has had coronavirus previously and is therefore presumed to be immune. This could help inform decisions about lifting lockdowns to allow people to go back to work safely.

But before these are rolled out, we need to know how accurate they are. This time we need to be confident that the antibody test doesn’t falsely reassure people that they are immune, as this could worsen the spread of infection. At the moment we don’t have enough information on these tests to be able to answer these questions. The very limited data available suggests they have fewer false negative results than swab tests, but more false positive results. This means there is a possibility that you could test positive without being immune and so these tests may not be as helpful as people are hoping.

The take home message is that testing is important to help understand and control the coronavirus outbreak – but it has limitations when used to guide decision-making for people. If you have strong symptoms of COVID-19, you should assume you have it – even if your test is negative.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Share:
World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

Subscribe today

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails. For more details, review our privacy policy.

This Earth Day we consider the impact of climate change on human health

Shyam Bishen and Annika Green

April 22, 2024

2:12

About Us

Events

Media

Partners & Members

  • Join Us

Language Editions

Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

© 2024 World Economic Forum