Adjusting confirmed COVID-19 case counts for testing volume

  1. Nathan Favero

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

When assessing the relative prevalence of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), observers often point to the number of COVID-19 cases that have been confirmed through viral testing. However, comparisons based on confirmed case counts alone can be misleading since a higher case count may reflect either a higher disease prevalence or a better rate of disease detection. Using weekly records of viral test results for each state in the US, I demonstrate how confirmed case counts can be adjusted based on the percentage of COVID-19 tests that come back positive. A regression analysis indicates that case counts track better with future hospitalizations and deaths when employing this simple adjustment for testing coverage. Viral testing results can be used as a leading indicator of COVID-19 prevalence, but data reporting standards should be improved, and care should be taken to account for testing coverage when comparing confirmed case counts.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.26.20141135: (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: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    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 10.1101/2020.06.26.20141135v1 on medRxiv