COVID-19 testing: disparity between national and institution-based case detection

  1. Timothy J Aitman
  2. Linda Bauld
  3. Kathryn F Carruthers
  4. Nick Gilbert
  5. Neil Turok

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Reports of COVID-19 prevalence through national statistics, community surveys and targeted testing at places of work or study have guided national and institutional responses to the pandemic. The University of Edinburgh established a mass testing programme, TestEd, for detection of COVID-19 in asymptomatic staff and students who are studying or working on campus. The study has tested more than 100,000 samples with more than 170 confirmed positive results. Since the introduction of a change in policy in England and the UK devolved nations in early January 2022, to limit eligibility for PCR testing in the community to those with symptoms, we have noticed a divergence between the reports in Scottish and UK-wide prevalence, and the magnitude and frequency of positive results in the University datasets. While the national UK-wide and Scottish case figures show declining or stable prevalence, University case reports have risen more than five-fold since early December 2021 and continue to rise. These observations could be important in the face of future variants of concern and emphasise the need for continued access to high sensitivity PCR testing and other forms of surveillance.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.21.22270847: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2022.02.21.22270847 on medRxiv