Paper detail

Evaluation of Pool-based Testing Approaches to Enable Population-wide Screening for COVID-19

Background: Rapid testing for an infection is paramount during a pandemic to prevent continued viral spread and excess morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to determine whether alternative testing strategies based on sample pooling can increase the speed and throughput of screening for SARS-CoV-2. Methods: A mathematical modelling approach was chosen to simulate six different testing strategies based on key input parameters (infection rate, test characteristics, population size, testing capacity etc.). The situations in five countries (US, DE, UK, IT and SG) currently experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks were simulated to reflect a broad variety of population sizes and testing capacities. The primary study outcome measurements that were finalised prior to any data collection were time and number of tests required; number of cases identified; and number of false positives. Findings: The performance of all tested methods depends on the input parameters, i.e. the specific circumstances of a screening campaign. To screen one tenth of each country's population at an infection rate of 1% - e.g. when prioritising frontline medical staff and public workers -, realistic optimised testing strategies enable such a campaign to be completed in ca. 29 days in the US, 71 in the UK, 25 in Singapore, 17 in Italy and 10 in Germany (ca. eight times faster compared to individual testing). When infection rates are considerably lower, or when employing an optimal, yet logistically more complex pooling method, the gains are more pronounced. Pool-based approaches also reduces the number of false positive diagnoses by 50%. Interpretation: The results of this study provide a clear rationale for adoption of pool-based testing strategies to increase speed and throughput of testing for SARS-CoV-2. The current individual testing approach unnecessarily wastes valuable time and resources.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.