Breaking the back of COVID-19: Is Bangladesh doing enough testing?

  1. Md Hasinur Rahaman Khan
  2. Tamanna Howlader

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Following detection of the first 100 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in early April, Bangladesh stepped up its efforts to strengthen testing capacity in order to curb the spread of the disease across the country. This paper sheds light on the position of Bangladesh in relation to its South Asian neighbors India and Pakistan with respect to testing capacity and ability to detect cases with increased testing. It also analyzes recent data on case counts and testing numbers in Bangladesh, to provide an idea regarding the number of extra tests needed to detect a substantial number of cases within a short period of time. Findings indicate that compared to India and Pakistan, Bangladesh was able to detect more cases by increasing testing levels and expand its testing capacity by performing more per capita tests. In spite of these achievements, the rate of reported cases per 100 tests was consistently higher for Bangladesh compared to India, which suggests that in addition to increased testing, other factors, such as, effective enforcement of social distancing and efficient contact tracing are just as important in curbing the spread of the disease. The analysis reveals that current testing levels in Bangladesh are not adequate. Based on the findings, we recommend a 30-50\% growth of the current test rate in the next few days so that by detecting and isolating more cases, Bangladesh could, in effect, contain the spread of new infections. The challenge, however, is to mobilize resources necessary to expand geographical coverage and improve testing quality while enforcing social distancing and performing efficient contact tracing.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096123: (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
    Basic statistical tools for exploratory data analysis have been used.
    Basic
    suggested: (BaSiC, RRID:SCR_016371)

    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 10.30577/jba.v3i2.46
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096123 on medRxiv