ArticleGates open research2023
Adaptive strategies for the deployment of rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling study.
Article in Gates open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causes and Contributing Factors of In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Among Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Infection in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Adaptive strategies for the deployment of rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling study.Gates open research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Lateral flow assays (LFAs) for the rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) provide an affordable, rapid and decentralised mean for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Concentrating on urban areas in low- and middle-income countries, the aim of this analysis was to estimate the degree to which 'dynamic' screening algorithms, that adjust the use of confirmatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing based on epidemiological conditions, could reduce cost without substantially reducing the impact of testing. Methods: Concentrating on a hypothetical 'second wave' of COVID-19 in India, we modelled the potential impact of testing 0.5% of the population per day at random with LFA, regardless of symptom status. We considered dynamic testing strategies where LFA positive cases are confirmed with PCR when LFA positivity rates are below a given threshold (10%, 50% and 90% of the peak positivity rate at the height of the epidemic wave), compared to confirming all positive LFA results or confirming no results. Benefit was estimated based on cumulative incidence of infection, and resource requirements, based on the cumulative number of PCR tests used and the cumulative number of unnecessary isolations. Results: A dynamic strategy of discontinuing PCR confirmation when LFA positivity exceeded 50% of the peak positivity rate in an unmitigated epidemic would achieve comparable impact to one employing PCR confirmation throughout (9.2% of cumulative cases averted vs 9.8%), while requiring 35% as many PCR tests. However, the dynamic testing strategy would increase the number of false-positive results substantially, from 0.07% of the population to 1.1%. Conclusions: Dynamic diagnostic strategies that adjust to epidemic conditions could help maximise the impact of testing at a given cost. Generally, dynamic strategies reduce the number of confirmatory PCR tests needed, but increase the number of unnecessary isolations. Optimal strategies will depend on whether greater priority is placed on limiting confirmatory testing or false-positive diagnoses.
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.