Comparison of antigen- and RT-PCR-based testing strategies for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in two high-exposure settings
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Surveillance testing for infectious disease is an important tool to combat disease transmission at the population level. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, RT-PCR tests have been considered the gold standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity. However, RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to return positive results when performed to individuals who are past the infectious stage of the disease. Meanwhile, antigen-based tests are often treated as a less accurate substitute for RT-PCR, however, new evidence suggests they may better reflect infectiousness. Consequently, the two test types may each be most optimally deployed in different settings. Here, we present an epidemiological model with surveillance testing and coordinated isolation in two congregate living settings (a nursing home and a university dormitory system) that considers test metrics with respect to viral culture, a proxy for infectiousness. Simulations show that antigen-based surveillance testing coupled with isolation greatly reduces disease burden and carries a lower economic cost than RT-PCR-based strategies. Antigen and RT-PCR tests perform different functions toward the goal of reducing infectious disease burden and should be used accordingly.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.03.21258248: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.03.21258248: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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.
-
