| Title |
Test sensitivity is secondary to frequency and turnaround time for COVID-19 screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science Advances, January 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1126/sciadv.abd5393 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel B Larremore, Bryan Wilder, Evan Lester, Soraya Shehata, James M Burke, James A Hay, Milind Tambe, Michael J Mina, Roy Parker |
| Abstract |
The COVID-19 pandemic has created a public health crisis. Because SARS-CoV-2 can spread from individuals with pre-symptomatic, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections, the re-opening of societies and the control of virus spread will be facilitated by robust population screening, for which virus testing will often be central. After infection, individuals undergo a period of incubation during which viral titers are usually too low to detect, followed by an exponential viral growth, leading to a peak viral load and infectiousness, and ending with declining viral levels and clearance. Given the pattern of viral load kinetics, we model the effectiveness of repeated population screening considering test sensitivities, frequency, and sample-to-answer reporting time. These results demonstrate that effective screening depends largely on frequency of testing and the speed of reporting, and is only marginally improved by high test sensitivity. We therefore conclude that screening should prioritize accessibility, frequency, and sample-to-answer time; analytical limits of detection should be secondary. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,620 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 273 | 10% |
| Japan | 249 | 10% |
| Spain | 150 | 6% |
| Canada | 107 | 4% |
| Germany | 67 | 3% |
| France | 47 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 42 | 2% |
| Slovenia | 19 | <1% |
| Austria | 17 | <1% |
| Other | 192 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1457 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2269 | 87% |
| Scientists | 217 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 95 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 35 | 1% |
| Unknown | 4 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 776 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 776 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 149 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 91 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 88 | 11% |
| Other | 58 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 51 | 7% |
| Other | 119 | 15% |
| Unknown | 220 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 95 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 63 | 8% |
| Engineering | 37 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 31 | 4% |
| Other | 170 | 22% |
| Unknown | 270 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3067. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,134
of 25,784,004 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#25
of 12,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134
of 530,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#2
of 525 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,784,004 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 120.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 530,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 525 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.