SARS-CoV-2 screening: effectiveness and risk of increasing transmission
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Testing asymptomatic people for SARS-CoV-2 aims to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Screening programmes’ effectiveness depends upon testing strategy, sample handling logistics, test sensitivity and individual behaviour, in addition to dynamics of viral transmission. The interaction between these factors is not fully characterized. We investigated the interaction between these factors to determine how to optimize reduction of transmission. We estimate that under idealistic assumptions 70% of transmission may be averted, but under realistic assumptions only 7% may be averted. We show that programmes that overwhelm laboratory capacity or reduce isolation of those with minor symptoms have increased transmission compared with those that do not: programmes need to be designed to avoid these issues, or they will be ineffective or even counter-productive. Our model allows optimal selection of whom to test, quantifies the balance between accuracy and timeliness, and quantifies potential impacts of behavioural interventions. We anticipate our model can be used to understand optimal screening strategies for other infectious diseases with substantially different dynamics.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.24.20236950: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.24.20236950: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
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.
-
