Assessment of the National Test Strategy on the Development of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Denmark
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Denmark has pursued a mass testing strategy culminating in the testing of 12.167 individuals per 100,000 inhabitants per day during the spring of 2021. The strategy included free access to COVID-19 testing, and since 2021, compulsory documentation for negative tests or vaccination has been required for access to workplace, educational institutions, restaurants, and many other places. Testing and subsequent isolation if testing was positive were voluntary. The present study provides an analysis of whether testing frequency in Denmark showed any correlation to hospitalizations throughout the relevant stages of the pandemic. Mass testing was found not to correlate significantly with the number of hospitalizations during the pandemic. Interestingly, during the highest level of testing in spring 2021 the fraction of positive tests increased slightly; thus, the Danish mass testing strategy, at its best, failed to reduce the prevalence of COVID-19. Furthermore, the relationship between positives in antigen testing and in rt-PCR testing indicated that many patients were not tested early in their infection when the risk of transmission was at the highest. In conclusion, the Danish mass testing strategy for COVID-19 does not appear to have a detectable correlation to the number of hospitalizations due to COVID-19.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.08.21260182: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.08.21260182: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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.
-
