ArticlePloS one2021
A novel comprehensive metric to assess effectiveness of COVID-19 testing: Inter-country comparison and association with geography, government, and policy response.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global COVID-19 Pandemic Outcomes: A Cross-Country Comparison Study of Policy Strategies.Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) · 2024Review
- Article
- Core health system measures response to COVID-19 among East Asian countries.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Determinants of differences in RT-PCR testing rates among Southeast Asian countries during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 in Indonesia: Lessons from the first wave.PloS one · 2023Observational
- The notable global heterogeneity in the distribution of COVID-19 cases and the association with pre-existing parasitic diseases.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Biosensors for the detection of disease outbreaks through wastewater-based epidemiology.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2022Review
- Public Health Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: The Role of the Morrison Government.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Measuring misclassification of Covid-19 as garbage codes: Results of investigating 1,365 deaths and implications for vital statistics in Brazil.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Underdetection in a stochastic SIR model for the analysis of the COVID-19 Italian epidemic.Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment : research journal · 2022Article
- Estimating the case fatality ratio for COVID-19 using a time-shifted distribution analysis.Epidemiology and infection · 2021Article
- Responses to COVID-19: The role of governance, healthcare infrastructure, and learning from past pandemics.Journal of business research · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Testing and case identification are key strategies in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Contact tracing and isolation are only possible if cases have been identified. The effectiveness of testing should be assessed, but a single comprehensive metric is not available to assess testing effectiveness, and no timely estimates of case detection rate are available globally, making inter-country comparisons difficult. The purpose of this paper was to propose a single, comprehensive metric, called the COVID-19 Testing Index (CovTI) scaled from 0 to 100, derived from epidemiological indicators of testing, and to identify factors associated with this outcome. The index was based on case-fatality rate, test positivity rate, active cases, and an estimate of the detection rate. It used parsimonious modeling to estimate the true total number of COVID-19 cases based on deaths, testing, health system capacity, and government transparency. Publicly reported data from 165 countries and territories that had reported at least 100 confirmed cases by June 3, 2020 were included in the index. Estimates of detection rates aligned satisfactorily with previous estimates in literature (R2 = 0.44). As of June 3, 2020, the states with the highest CovTI included Hong Kong (93.7), Australia (93.5), Iceland (91.8), Cambodia (91.3), New Zealand (90.6), Vietnam (90.2), and Taiwan (89.9). Bivariate analyses showed the mean CovTI in countries with open public testing policies (66.9, 95% CI 61.0-72.8) was significantly higher than in countries with no testing policy (29.7, 95% CI 17.6-41.9) (p<0.0001). A multiple linear regression model assessed the association of independent grouping variables with CovTI. Open public testing and extensive contact tracing were shown to significantly increase CovTI, after adjusting for extrinsic factors, including geographic isolation and centralized forms of government. The correlation of testing and contact tracing policies with improved outcomes demonstrates the validity of this model to assess testing effectiveness and also suggests these policies were effective at improving health outcomes. This tool can be combined with other databases to identify other factors or may be useful as a standalone tool to help inform policymakers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.