What is the recommended diagnostic test for a suspected norovirus infection?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: September 11, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Diagnostic Testing for Norovirus Infection

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the recommended diagnostic test for suspected norovirus infection due to its superior sensitivity and specificity compared to other available methods. 1

Specimen Collection and Handling

Optimal Specimen Type

  • Whole stool specimens are strongly preferred over rectal swabs due to higher viral loads present in stool 1
  • Collect 10-50 mL of whole stool in a clean container 1
  • Vomitus can also be tested but has unknown sensitivity compared to stool 1

Timing of Collection

  • Collect specimens as early as possible in the illness course
  • Ideally obtain specimens during acute phase (within 48-72 hours after symptom onset) when viral shedding is highest 1
  • Specimens collected up to 7-10 days after onset may still yield positive results 1

Storage and Transport

  • Refrigerate specimens at 39°F (4°C) if testing will occur within 2-3 weeks 1
  • For longer storage, freeze at -4°F (-20°C) or -94°F (-70°C) 1
  • Transport specimens individually bagged and sealed, on ice or frozen refrigerant packs in insulated containers 1

Diagnostic Methods

Recommended Primary Method: RT-PCR

  • RT-PCR is the gold standard for norovirus detection with sensitivity of 92-93% and specificity of 100% 1, 2
  • Real-time RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) provides quantitative results that can help distinguish clinically significant infections from asymptomatic shedding 3
  • A cycle threshold (Ct) value of 31 has been identified as the optimal cut-off for attributing illness to norovirus 3

Alternative Method: Enzyme Immunoassays (EIAs)

  • EIAs have lower sensitivity (36-80%) compared to RT-PCR but high specificity (83-100%) 1, 4, 5
  • Not recommended for sporadic cases due to poor sensitivity 1
  • May be useful for preliminary screening in outbreak settings when:
    • Multiple specimens are available (at least 5-6 samples) 1
    • The EIA has high specificity (>85%) and moderate sensitivity (>50%) 1
    • Negative samples are confirmed by RT-PCR 1

Outbreak Investigation

  • Collect specimens from at least 5 ill persons for optimal diagnostic yield 1
  • Testing more specimens increases sensitivity (from 44.1% with 3 samples to 76.9% with 5 samples) 4
  • An outbreak is laboratory-confirmed as norovirus when stool or vomitus specimens from at least 2 ill persons test positive 1

Interpretation of Results

Positive RT-PCR

  • High viral load (low Ct value <26.5) strongly suggests norovirus as the causative agent 4, 3
  • Consider clinical correlation for specimens with Ct values near the cut-off of 31 3

Positive EIA

  • In outbreak settings with multiple positive specimens, likely indicates norovirus as the causative agent 1
  • For sporadic cases, confirm with RT-PCR due to limited sensitivity 1, 4

Negative Results

  • If clinical suspicion remains high, consider:
    • Testing additional specimens
    • Using more sensitive methods (RT-PCR if EIA was initially used)
    • Evaluating for other causes of gastroenteritis 6

Common Pitfalls and Caveats

  • Rectal swabs have significantly lower sensitivity (65.6%) than whole stool specimens 6
  • EIAs may miss certain genotypes (GI.8, GII.10, GII.16) and specimens with low viral loads 4
  • RT-PCR may detect asymptomatic shedding (up to 16% of healthy individuals) 3
  • Delayed specimen collection may result in false negatives as viral shedding decreases over time 1

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.