Getting a herpes diagnosis isn’t just about having a label. It’s about understanding what’s going on in your body and making informed choices that support your health and your relationships. Genital herpes is more common than many people realize, and in many cases, it’s passed on by someone who doesn’t even know they have it. This happens because the virus can be present and transmissible even when there are no visible symptoms. Without testing, that kind of silent transmission can continue unnoticed.
For individuals, having clarity can be a turning point. When symptoms are mild, irregular, or mistaken for something else, it’s easy to feel unsure or anxious. That uncertainty can affect mental health and make it difficult to communicate with partners. But when someone receives a confirmed diagnosis, they gain the tools to move forward. They can make sense of past symptoms, better manage future ones, and have more honest conversations about their sexual health.
Testing also matters for reasons that go beyond the personal. Public health efforts rely on accurate diagnosis to identify people who may not have symptoms but can still spread the virus. When those individuals are identified, they can receive support and information that helps prevent further transmission. This is especially important in reducing the risks associated with other infections that can be more easily transmitted when herpes is present.
Accurate testing is not just about prevention. It’s also about care. When people know their status, they’re more likely to seek out the guidance and treatment they need. They can also better understand how herpes fits into the bigger picture of their health, rather than being left with questions or confusion. It gives people the opportunity to take control in a situation that might otherwise feel overwhelming.
No one benefits from being in the dark. With the right test at the right time, people can gain peace of mind, improve communication, and take meaningful steps to protect themselves and others. It’s not about judgment. It’s about knowledge, clarity, and support.
Why Testing Accuracy Matters
Many people assume they would know if they had herpes, but the truth is that most don’t. Around 80 percent of those infected are unaware of it. This is often because symptoms are mild, don’t appear at all, or mimic other conditions. It’s not uncommon for someone to mistake a herpes outbreak for something like a yeast infection or bacterial vaginosis. Even in newborns, herpes can show up with symptoms that look like general infections, which makes timely and accurate testing even more critical. Without laboratory confirmation, the risk of misdiagnosis is high, especially when relying on visual assessments alone.
An incorrect test result can have serious emotional and practical consequences. Some blood tests, especially those used to detect HSV-2, have been found to produce high rates of false positives. This means people may be told they have herpes when they don’t, leading to confusion, distress, and sometimes unnecessary changes in their relationships or health decisions. On the other side, false negatives can create a false sense of security. People may unknowingly continue to transmit the virus or delay getting the care they need. Certain factors, like rheumatoid factor in the blood, can also interfere with testing, especially in pregnant individuals. This highlights the importance of using confirmatory tests and choosing testing methods carefully based on each person’s situation.
Not all herpes infections are the same, and understanding the differences can change how someone approaches their care. HSV-2 tends to cause more frequent outbreaks and carries a higher risk of transmission, so knowing whether it’s HSV-1 or HSV-2 can help guide both treatment and conversations with partners. Some people have both types, which can further complicate symptoms and risk factors. It’s also important to understand that a positive blood test for HSV-1 doesn’t always mean genital herpes—it may reflect an oral infection acquired in childhood. Without knowing the location of the infection, people may draw the wrong conclusions about what their results mean. Testing that can distinguish both type and site is essential for giving accurate, personalized information.
Types of Herpes Tests: Overview and Purpose
Understanding the different ways herpes can be diagnosed helps make sense of why certain tests are used in specific situations. Each method comes with its strengths and limitations, and the right choice often depends on whether symptoms are present, how recently someone may have been exposed, and what kind of clarity they’re seeking.
Swab (PCR) Test
When someone has an active sore, a swab test using PCR is often the first and most accurate option. This method detects the virus’s DNA directly from the lesion and is highly sensitive—even more so than older techniques like viral culture. It works best when the sore is fresh and blistered, giving laboratories the highest chance of confirming the virus’s presence.
While PCR is a powerful tool for diagnosing an active infection, it isn’t helpful for identifying past exposure. If someone no longer has visible symptoms or is asymptomatic, this test may not be able to provide answers. It’s most effective when used right at the time of an outbreak, and less so outside of that window.
Viral Culture
Viral culture used to be the standard for diagnosing herpes, but it’s now less commonly used because it’s not as sensitive as PCR. The process involves trying to grow the virus from a sample taken from a lesion, which only works reliably if the sore is still early in its development. Once the lesion begins to heal, the chances of successfully detecting the virus drop significantly.
Even though viral culture has fallen out of favor in many settings, it’s still used in some clinics or labs where resources may be limited or where PCR isn’t readily available. While it can confirm a diagnosis when positive, a negative result—especially from a late-stage sore—doesn’t necessarily mean the person is herpes-free.
Blood Tests (Serologic Testing)
When no symptoms are present or if someone is trying to understand past exposure, a blood test can offer helpful information. Type-specific IgG tests detect antibodies to HSV-1 and HSV-2 and can distinguish between the two types. This is particularly useful for people who’ve never had noticeable outbreaks or whose PCR or culture results are negative despite suspicion of infection.
These tests are especially important in situations like partner testing, pregnancy, or when counseling someone newly diagnosed. However, not all blood tests are created equal. Type-specific testing is crucial—non-specific or IgM-based tests often lead to false positives and can cause confusion or unnecessary worry. IgM tests, in particular, have been shown to lack reliability and are generally not recommended for routine use.
By understanding the differences among these testing methods, people can better navigate their options and ask for the type of test that fits their needs. Whether someone is dealing with new symptoms or just looking for peace of mind, knowing what each test can and cannot do makes the path forward clearer.
Comparing Accuracy: Which Is the Most Reliable?
The accuracy of herpes testing depends heavily on timing, symptoms, and the specific method used. No single test is perfect for every situation, but some are clearly more reliable depending on the context.
During an Outbreak: PCR Swab Test
When symptoms are present, particularly during a fresh outbreak, PCR testing is considered the most accurate diagnostic tool available. It works by detecting HSV DNA directly from a lesion sample, offering extremely high sensitivity and specificity. This makes it far more effective than older methods like viral culture, especially when the sore is still new and unhealed.
That said, PCR testing has limitations. It only works when there’s an active lesion to swab. If someone has no visible sores or is no longer in the outbreak phase, this method won’t provide useful results. For those without current symptoms, another approach is needed.
Outside of an Outbreak: Type-Specific IgG Blood Test
For people who don’t have symptoms but want to know if they’ve been exposed, a type-specific IgG blood test is the most useful option. These tests can detect past exposure to HSV-1 or HSV-2, and they’re especially helpful for partners of someone with a known diagnosis or for people with a history of unexplained symptoms.
Timing is important with these tests. Antibodies typically take 12 to 16 weeks after exposure to show up in the blood. Testing too early can lead to false negatives, which might leave someone with a false sense of reassurance. It’s also critical that the test used is truly type-specific, based on glycoprotein G. Not all labs offer this level of precision, and non-type-specific results can be difficult to interpret or misleading.
Tests to Avoid or Use with Caution
Not every test marketed for herpes is reliable. IgM antibody tests, for example, are still available in some places but are widely discouraged. They often produce false positives and can’t reliably distinguish between HSV-1 and HSV-2, which makes them a poor choice for diagnosis or reassurance.
At-home test kits are another area to approach with care. While some can be useful, others lack proper validation. Many don’t use type-specific IgG assays or process samples through certified labs. Anyone considering an at-home test should look closely at whether the lab is CLIA-certified and whether the test is based on glycoprotein G technology. Without those safeguards, the results may be inaccurate or difficult to interpret.
Understanding which tests are most accurate—and under what circumstances—helps people make informed choices and avoid unnecessary confusion or distress. The right test at the right time can offer real clarity, whether someone is seeking confirmation, reassurance, or answers about past exposure.
Factors That Influence Accuracy
The reliability of herpes testing depends on several variables. Timing, the specific test used, and how the sample is collected all have a direct impact on how accurate the results will be.
Timing: Test Too Early Equals False Negative
One of the most common reasons for inaccurate results is testing too soon after exposure. The body needs time to produce antibodies that can be detected by blood tests. For type-specific IgG tests, this typically takes 12 to 16 weeks. Testing before this window can result in a false negative, which may delay diagnosis and give a misleading sense of reassurance.
PCR testing is also affected by timing, but in a different way. It is most accurate when used on a fresh lesion. If the sore has started to heal, the amount of viral DNA present decreases, which can reduce the test’s ability to detect the infection. IgM tests, sometimes used to identify recent infections, are also unreliable. They can give inconsistent results and may cross-react with other viruses, making them a poor indicator of the timing or presence of herpes.
Test Method: PCR Compared to Culture, IgG Compared to IgM
The choice of test significantly influences accuracy. PCR testing is more sensitive and dependable than viral culture, especially when used early in an outbreak. It identifies the virus’s genetic material, making it highly effective even when only a small amount of the virus is present.
In contrast, viral cultures require a strong sample and are less likely to detect the virus if the lesion is healing or was swabbed improperly. While still used in some settings, they are no longer the preferred method for diagnosis.
For blood tests, IgG-based assays are the most accurate option. They can determine whether someone has been exposed to HSV-1 or HSV-2 and provide results that are useful for counseling and risk assessment. IgM tests, on the other hand, are much less reliable. They frequently produce false positives and cannot clearly indicate whether an infection is new or long-standing.
Understanding how timing and test method affect accuracy helps individuals and healthcare providers choose the right approach. With the right combination, testing can provide meaningful answers and reduce the chances of confusion or misdiagnosis.
When to Get Tested—and What to Ask For
The decision to get tested for herpes often comes down to two key scenarios: experiencing symptoms or having concerns after a possible exposure. Each calls for a different approach, and knowing what to ask for can make a real difference in getting accurate results.
During Symptoms: Ask for PCR Swab
If symptoms are present, especially if a sore has recently appeared, a PCR swab test is the most accurate option. This test works by detecting the DNA of the herpes virus directly from the lesion. It is far more sensitive than viral culture, especially during early-stage outbreaks when the virus is most active on the skin. PCR can detect infections that culture might miss, and it works faster too. Results often come back within a few hours, helping to confirm the diagnosis quickly and guide immediate treatment.
The key is to test while the sore is still fresh. Once a lesion starts healing, the amount of detectable virus drops, which can make the test less effective. Acting quickly increases the chances of an accurate result.
Without Symptoms but Possible Exposure: Wait at Least 12 Weeks and Ask for Type-Specific IgG Blood Test
If there are no symptoms but a possible exposure has occurred, a different kind of test is needed. Type-specific IgG blood tests are the best option for detecting past infection. These tests identify antibodies that the body produces in response to the virus, which helps determine whether someone has been exposed to HSV-1 or HSV-2.
However, timing is critical. Antibodies take time to develop, and testing too soon after exposure may not give an accurate result. Waiting at least 12 to 16 weeks increases the chances that antibodies, if present, will be detectable. This helps reduce the risk of false negatives and gives a more reliable picture of a person’s status.
IgM tests, which are sometimes marketed as identifying recent infection, are not recommended. They have poor specificity and cannot accurately tell the difference between HSV-1 and HSV-2. Relying on these tests can lead to confusion or misdiagnosis.
What to Ask Your Provider
Choosing the right test is only part of the process. Knowing what to ask can help ensure the results are meaningful and based on the most accurate methods available. Patients may want to ask:
- Is this test type-specific?
- Does the lab use CDC-recommended methods?
- Should I repeat testing in a few weeks if this comes back negative?
These questions help clarify what kind of testing is being done and whether the timing is right. Not all labs or providers automatically use the most reliable methods, so speaking up can help make sure the results are as clear and accurate as possible.
Navigating Ambiguous or Conflicting Results
Herpes test results are not always straightforward. Some people may receive a positive result without ever having had symptoms, while others may find that different tests give different answers. In these cases, understanding what the results actually mean, when to follow up, and how to talk with a provider becomes especially important.
What to Do with a Positive IgG but No Symptoms
Receiving a positive type-specific IgG result when you’ve never had noticeable symptoms can be confusing. In these cases, it’s important to understand that the presence of antibodies does not necessarily mean someone will experience outbreaks or that symptoms have simply gone unnoticed. Research shows that many people with positive HSV-2 antibodies do not report any history of symptoms, and there is often no clear connection between test results and clinical experience.
IgG antibodies typically remain in the body for life, reflecting past exposure rather than active disease. This means a positive result does not confirm a current infection or predict whether symptoms will develop. In some cases, especially in populations with lower rates of herpes, type-specific IgG tests can produce false positives or fall into an indeterminate range. When this happens, confirmatory testing with a more specific method, such as the Western blot, can help clarify the diagnosis.
When to Retest or Seek a Second Opinion
Not all results are final. If an initial test result is unclear, unexpectedly positive, or inconsistent with a person’s medical history, it’s reasonable to seek additional testing. For those who test early after a potential exposure, waiting 12 to 16 weeks and repeating the test can improve accuracy. Confirmatory Western blot testing is often recommended when IgG results are ambiguous or difficult to interpret.
There are also cases where a person may test negative despite having a confirmed history of outbreaks. These false negatives highlight the importance of follow-up, especially if symptoms continue. Seeing a specialist or asking for a second opinion can help sort through the uncertainty and determine whether further testing is needed.
Why Context and Communication with Your Provider Matters
Test results are just one part of the picture. A full understanding of someone’s sexual history, risk factors, and symptom patterns is necessary to interpret those results correctly. Without that context, there’s a risk of misunderstanding what the results actually mean.
Misinterpretation is especially common when people test positive for HSV antibodies but have no symptoms. This can lead to worry or assumptions about transmission that may not be accurate. Open communication with a trusted healthcare provider can help reduce this stress. When patients and providers work together, they can make shared decisions about retesting, treatment, and next steps that reflect the whole picture, not just a number on a lab report.
The Bigger Picture: Testing as a Tool, Not a Label
A herpes diagnosis can bring up a range of emotions, especially in a society where stigma is still common. But testing is not a judgment or a label. It is a way to understand your health, take informed steps, and create room for open, honest conversations. When people are supported and informed, testing becomes an act of care rather than a source of fear.
It is natural to feel overwhelmed after a diagnosis. Emotional distress is common, but it does not have to be the end of the story. Research shows that support systems and destigmatizing approaches can ease those feelings and help people move forward with greater resilience. Programs that offer peer support, clear information, and nonjudgmental spaces can make a real difference in how someone processes their diagnosis and adapts over time.
The stigma around herpes can be isolating. It can lead people to avoid testing or delay care, not because they do not want to be responsible, but because they fear what the results might say about them. Reframing testing as a proactive and empowering health decision can reduce that fear. When testing is seen as a way to take control, it helps people move from anxiety to action. This kind of shift supports emotional wellbeing and strengthens confidence in personal decision-making.
It also helps to remember that a test result is just one part of a much bigger picture. A herpes diagnosis does not define who someone is, or what kind of relationships they can have. With education and support, many people find that managing herpes becomes just one part of a healthy, full life. Addressing stigma directly—through open conversations, accurate information, and supportive care—reduces stress and encourages emotional healing.
Having the right information also makes it easier to speak up. When people know what questions to ask and feel comfortable asking them, they become active participants in their own care. This can shift the experience from one of shame or confusion to one of clarity and empowerment. Providers who create space for these conversations make it easier for patients to feel seen, respected, and supported.
Testing should never be treated as a label. It is a resource that helps people take care of themselves and others. With the right approach, it becomes a source of clarity, not fear, and a first step toward long-term health and peace of mind.
A Clearer Path Forward
Getting tested for herpes is not just about checking a box. It is about understanding your body, making informed choices, and building confidence in your health. With several testing options and a lot of mixed information out there, it is normal to feel uncertain at first. But knowing what to ask for, when to get tested, and how to make sense of the results can offer real clarity.
Every person’s experience is different. Some are looking for answers about recent symptoms. Others may be managing an unexpected diagnosis or trying to support a partner. Wherever you are in that process, you deserve care that is accurate, respectful, and free from judgment. Testing is one part of that care. It does not define who you are. It gives you information to help move forward with support and self-awareness.
If this article brought you a bit more clarity or comfort, we invite you to join our mailing list. You will get thoughtful updates, new articles, and helpful resources delivered with the same supportive tone you found here. We are here when you need us.
References
Agyemang, E. A., Le, Q., Warren, T., et al. (2017). Performance of Commercial Enzyme-Linked Immunoassays for Diagnosis of HSV-1 and HSV-2. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 44(12), 763–767.
Ashley-Morrow, R., Krantz, E., & Wald, A. (2003). Time course of seroconversion by HerpeSelect ELISA after acquisition of genital herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or HSV-2. Sexually transmitted diseases, 30(4), 310–314.
Bennett, C., Rebafka, A., Carrier, J., Cook, S., & Edwards, D. (2022). Impact of primary and recurrent genital herpes on the quality of life of young people and adults: a mixed methods systematic review. JBI evidence synthesis, 20(6), 1406–1473.
Bhalla, P., & Patwardhan, V. (2013). Comparison of in-house PCR and direct fluorescent antibody assay for detection and typing of HSV. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 89, A359–A360.
Bobrow, M. (2016). Full Disclosure: Herpes Stigma and Communication Practices among HSV+ Individuals.
Burkhart, C. N., & Burkhart, C. G. (2009). Serological testing for herpes can lead to misinterpretation in disease transmission. The Open Dermatology Journal, 3, 14–15.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Genital Herpes – CDC Fact Sheet (Detailed).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). STDs: General Information.
Chakraborty, P., Norris, A., Huber-Krum, S., et al. (2019). An Assessment of Risk Factors for HSV-2 Infection in Malawian Women Using Two Classifications for the HerpeSelect 2 Test. Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
Chan, K., & Lam, C. B. (2018). The Impact of Familial Expressed Emotion on Clinical and Personal Recovery Among Patients With Psychiatric Disorders. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88(6), 626–635.
Choi, T., Lee, K. T., Park, H. I., & Kang, J. (2003). Isolation of the herpes simplex virus by shell vial culture. Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 23, 324–328.
Corrigan, P., Bink, A. B., Schmidt, A., Jones, N., & Rüsch, N. (2016). What is the impact of self-stigma? Loss of self-respect and the “why try” effect. Journal of Mental Health, 25(1), 10–15.
Cusini, M., & Ghislanzoni, M. (2001). The importance of diagnosing genital herpes. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 47(Suppl T1), 9–16.
Dominguez, S. R., Pretty, K., Hengartner, R., & Robinson, C. C. (2018). Comparison of Herpes Simplex Virus PCR with Culture for Virus Detection in Multisource Surface Swab Specimens from Neonates. Journal of clinical microbiology, 56(10), e00632-18.
France, N. F., Macdonald, S. H-F., Conroy, R. R., Chiroro, P., Ni Cheallaigh, D., Nyamucheta, M., Mapanda, B., Shumba, G., Mudede, D., & Byrne, E. (2019). ‘We are the change’ – An innovative community-based response to address self-stigma. A pilot study focusing on people living with HIV in Zimbabwe. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0210152
Handsfield, H. (2000). Public health strategies to prevent genital herpes: Where do we stand? Current Infectious Disease Reports, 2, 25–30.
Hatchette T. F. (2007). Herpes simplex virus type-specific serology: Where does it fit in the diagnostic armamentarium?. The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale, 18(4), 225–227.
Ivezić, S., Sesar, M. A., & Mužinić, L. (2017). Effects of a Group Psychoeducation Program on Self-Stigma, Empowerment and Perceived Discrimination. Psychiatria Danubina, 29(1), 66–73.
Jiang, J., Yang, W., Ren, H. Q., Zhao, Q., Fu, A., & Ge, Y. L. (2024). Positive Herpesvirus IgG Antibodies in Lung Cancer Patients Finally Proved as Drug-induced Pemphigus. Clinical Laboratory, 70(1).
Le, Q., Warren, T., Selke, S., Magaret, A., & Wald, A. (2015). Performance of HerpeSelect ELISA for Diagnosis of HSV-1 and HSV-2 Infection. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 91(Suppl 2).
Legoff, J., Péré, H., & Bélec, L. (2014). Diagnosis of genital herpes simplex virus infection in the clinical laboratory. Virology Journal, 11, 83.
Liu, J., Yi, Y., Chen, W., Si, S., Yin, M., Jin, H., Liu, J., Zhou, J., & Zhang, J. (2015). Development and evaluation of the quantitative real-time PCR assay in detection and typing of herpes simplex virus. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 8(10), 18758–18764.
Marshall, D. L., Linfert, D. R., Draghi, A., McCarter, Y. S., & Tsongalis, G. J. (2001). Identification of herpes simplex virus genital infection: comparison of a multiplex PCR assay and traditional viral isolation techniques. Modern Pathology, 14, 152–156.
Merin, A., & Pachankis, J. E. (2011). The psychological impact of genital herpes stigma. Journal of health psychology, 16(1), 80–90.
Morrow, R. A., & Friedrich, D. (2006). Performance of a novel test for IgM and IgG antibodies in subjects with culture-documented genital herpes simplex virus-1 or -2 infection. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 12(5), 463–469.
Pan, J., Meng, G., Huang, B., Lan, L., & Ming, L. (2018). Interference by Rheumatoid Factor in Immunoglobulin M-Class HSV 1 + 2 Immunoassays. Laboratory Medicine, 49(4), 369–371.
Papini, M. (2012). Herpes genitalis without frontiers. Giornale Italiano di Dermatologia e Venereologia, 147(5), 475–481.
Patt, E. M., Ribes, J. A., Howard, J. I., & Olney, K. B. (2025). Incidence and Diagnosis of Neonatal Herpes Simplex Virus Following Transition to In-House Serum Testing. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 12(Suppl 1).
Perez, J., Lewis, K. A., Vargas, S., Klausner, J. D., & Konda, K. (2023). Does genital herpes symptom history predict herpes simplex virus type 2 antibody positivity? International Journal of STD & AIDS.
Ramaswamy, M., McDonald, C., Smith, M., Thomas, D., Maxwell, S., Tenant‐Flowers, M., & Geretti, A. (2004). Diagnosis of genital herpes by real time PCR in routine clinical practice. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 80, 406–410.
Ratnam, S., Severini, A., Zahariadis, G., Petric, M., & Romanowski, B. (2007). The diagnosis of genital herpes – beyond culture. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology, 18(4), 233-240.
Roest, W., van Rooijen, M. V., Kwa, D., Jansen, G., & de Vries, H. D. (2013). False Negative HSV IgG1 and IgG2 Antibody Responses in Individuals with a Recurrent Genital Herpes Infection. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 89, A62.
Ryan, C., & Kinghorn, G. (2006). Clinical assessment of assays for diagnosis of herpes simplex infection. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 6(5), 767–775.
Sacks, S., & Wilson, B. R. (1997). Genital Herpes: Management Issues for the Next Century. Antiviral Chemistry and Chemotherapy, 8, 45-50.
Sen, P., Sun, Y. J., Tan, H., Tan, S., & Chan, R. (2008). Comparison of nested-polymerase chain reaction and virus culture for the diagnosis of genital HSV infection. Singapore Medical Journal, 49(6), 466-469.
Sert, U. Y., Ozgu-Erdinc, A., Saygan, S., & Engin-Ustun, Y. (2019). Herpes Simplex Infection During Pregnancy. Zeitschrift für Geburtshilfe und Neonatologie, 224, 22–25.
Shearer, L., Simmons, L., Mindel, A., Stanberry, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2012). Reducing the stigma of herpes simplex virus infection: lessons from an online video contest. Sexual Health, 9(5), 438–444.
Slomka, M. (2000). Current diagnostic techniques in genital herpes: their role in controlling the epidemic. Clinical Laboratory, 46(11-12), 591–607.
Strick, L. B., & Wald, A. (2004). Type-specific testing for herpes simplex virus. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 4, 443–453.
Strick, L. B., & Wald, A. (2012). Diagnostics for herpes simplex virus. Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy, 10, 17-28.
Tejaswini, B. V. V. V., Yarra, M. C., Naseema, S., & Jahnavi, I. (2023). Seroprevalence and Molecular Detection of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Genital Herpes Simplex Virus 2 among HIV Positive Patients. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research.
van Doornum, G. J. J., Guldemeester, J., Osterhaus, A. D. M. E., & Niesters, H. G. M. (2003). Diagnosing herpesvirus infections by real-time amplification and rapid culture. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 41(2), 576–580.
Wagoner, N. J., & Hook, E. (2012). Herpes Diagnostic Tests and Their Use. Current Infectious Disease Reports, 14(2), 175–184.
Wald, A., & Ashley-Morrow, R. (2002). Serological testing for herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 and HSV-2. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 35(Suppl 2), S173-S182.
Workowski, K. A., Bachmann, L. H., Chan, P. A., Johnston, C. M., Muzny, C. A., Park, I., Reno, H., Zenilman, J. M., & Bolan, G. A. (2021). Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports, 70(4), 1–187.
Xu, Z., Lay, B., Oexle, N., et al. (2018). Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation, stigma stress and recovery: a 2-year study. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 28, 458–465.
