The Impact of Changes in Diagnostic Testing Practices on Estimates of COVID-19 Transmission in the United States

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Estimates of the reproductive number for novel pathogens, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, are essential for understanding the potential trajectory of epidemics and the levels of intervention that are needed to bring the epidemics under control. However, most methods for estimating the basic reproductive number (R0) and time-varying effective reproductive number (Rt) assume that the fraction of cases detected and reported is constant through time. We explored the impact of secular changes in diagnostic testing and reporting on estimates of R0 and Rt using simulated data. We then compared these patterns to data on reported cases of coronavirus disease 2019 and testing practices from different states in the United States from March 4, 2020, to August 30, 2020. We found that changes in testing practices and delays in reporting can result in biased estimates of R0 and Rt. Examination of changes in the daily numbers of tests conducted and the percentages of patients who tested positive might be helpful for identifying the potential direction of bias. Changes in diagnostic testing and reporting processes should be monitored and taken into consideration when interpreting estimates of the reproductive number of coronavirus disease.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.20.20073338: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Models were run using MATLAB v9.3 (MathWorks, Natick, MA); code is available from https://github.com/vepitzer/COVIDtestingbias.
    MATLAB
    suggested: (MATLAB, RRID:SCR_001622)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.