Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962160›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Two-test algorithms for infectious disease diagnosis: Implications for COVID-19.

Sunil Pokharel, Lisa J White, Jilian A Sacks, Camille Escadafal, Amy Toporowski, Sahra Isse Mohammed, Solomon Chane Abera, Kekeletso Kao, Marcela De Melo Freitas, Sabine Dittrich

Erratum issuedFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sunil PokharelNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6716-7732
Lisa J WhiteBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6523-185X
Jilian A SacksFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Camille EscadafalFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Amy ToporowskiFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Sahra Isse MohammedNational Reference Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Mogadishu, Somalia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5535-8566
Solomon Chane AberaWorld Health Organization Country Office in Somalia, Mogadishu, Somalia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6388-7719
Kekeletso KaoFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8404-9714
Marcela De Melo FreitasFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Sabine DittrichNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4522-2788

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic assays for various infectious diseases, including COVID-19, have been challenged for their utility as standalone point-of-care diagnostic tests due to suboptimal accuracy, complexity, high cost or long turnaround times for results. It is therefore critical to optimise their use to meet the needs of users. We used a simulation approach to estimate diagnostic outcomes, number of tests required and average turnaround time of using two-test algorithms compared with singular testing; the two tests were reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). A web-based application of the model was developed to visualise and compare diagnostic outcomes for different disease prevalence and test performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity). We tested the model using hypothetical prevalence data for COVID-19, representing low- and high-prevalence contexts and performance characteristics of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs. The two-test algorithm when RT-PCR was applied to samples negative by Ag-RDT predicted gains in sensitivity of 27% and 7%, respectively, compared with Ag-RDT and RT-PCR alone. Similarly, when RT-PCR was applied to samples positive by Ag-RDT, specificity gains of 2.9% and 1.9%, respectively, were predicted. The algorithm using Ag-RDT followed by RT-PCR as a confirmatory test for positive patients limited the requirement of RT-PCR testing resources to 16,400 and 3,034 tests when testing a population of 100,000 with an infection prevalence of 20% and 0.05%, respectively. A two-test algorithm comprising a rapid screening test followed by confirmatory laboratory testing can reduce false positive rate, produce rapid results and conserve laboratory resources, but can lead to large number of missed cases in high prevalence setting. The web application of the model can identify the best testing strategies, tailored to specific use cases and we also present some examples how it was used as part of the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator Diagnostics Pillar.

Identifiers

PMID36962160
PMCPMC10021374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read33
identifiers read7
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.