Making sense of the Global Coronavirus Data: The role of testing rates in understanding the pandemic and our exit strategy

  1. Rahul Potluri
  2. Deepthi Lavu

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The Coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) outbreak has caused havoc across the world. Subsequently, research on COVID-19 has focused on number of cases and deaths and predicted projections have focused on these parameters. We propose that the number of tests performed is a very important denominator in understanding the COVID-19 data. We analysed the number of diagnostic tests performed in proportion to the number of cases and subsequently deaths across different countries and projected pandemic outcomes.

We obtained real time COVID-19 data from the reference website Worldometer at 0900 BST on Saturday 4 th April, 2020 and collated the information obtained on the top 50 countries with the highest number of COVID 19 cases. We analysed this data according to the number of tests performed as the main denominator. Country wise population level pandemic projections were extrapolated utilising three models - 1) inherent case per test and death per test rates at the time of obtaining the data (4/4/2020 0900 BST) for each country; 2) rates adjusted according to the countries who conducted at least 100000 tests and 3) rates adjusted according to South Korea.

We showed that testing rates impact on the number of cases and deaths and ultimately on future projections for the pandemic across different countries. We found that countries with the highest testing rates per population have the lowest death rates and give us an early indication of an eventual COVID-19 mortality rate. It is only by continued testing on a large scale that will enable us to know if the increasing number of patients who are seriously unwell in hospitals across the world are the tip of the iceberg or not. Accordingly, obtaining this information through a rapid increase in testing globally is the only way which will enable us to exit the COVID-19 pandemic and reduce economic and social instability.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.06.20054239: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    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.

  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.06.20054239: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.Randomizationnot detected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    PubMed PMID: 32109372 . 9 ) Xiang YT , Li W , Zhang Q , Jin Y , Rao WW , Zeng LN , Lok GKI , Chow IHI , Cheung T , Hall BJ .
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, SCR_004846)

    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).

    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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.06.20054239v1 on medRxiv