Early and massive testing saves lives: COVID-19 related infections and deaths in the United States during March of 2020

  1. James B. Hittner
  2. Folorunso O. Fasina
  3. Almira L. Hoogesteijn
  4. Renata Piccinini
  5. Prakasha Kempaiah
  6. Stephen D. Smith
  7. Ariel L. Rivas

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

To optimize epidemiologic interventions, predictors of mortality should be identified. The US COVID-19 epidemic data, reported up to 31 March 2020, were analyzed using kernel regularized least squares regression. Six potential predictors of mortality were investigated: (i) the number of diagnostic tests performed in testing week I; (ii) the proportion of all tests conducted during week I of testing; (iii) the cumulative number of (test-positive) cases through 3-31-2020, (iv) the number of tests performed/million citizens; (v) the cumulative number of citizens tested; and (vi) the apparent prevalence rate, defined as the number of cases/million citizens. Two metrics estimated mortality: the number of deaths and the number of deaths/million citizens. While both expressions of mortality were predicted by the case count and the apparent prevalence rate, the number of deaths/million citizens was ≈3.5 times better predicted by the apparent prevalence rate than the number of cases. In eighteen states, early testing/million citizens/population density was inversely associated with the cumulative mortality reported by 31 March, 2020. Findings support the hypothesis that early and massive testing saves lives. Other factors —e.g., population density— may also influence outcomes. To optimize national and local policies, the creation and dissemination of high resolution geo-referenced, epidemic data is recommended.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.14.20102483: (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. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.14.20102483v1 on medRxiv