↓ Skip to main content

A COVID-19 Test Triage Tool, Predicting Negative Results and Reducing the Testing Burden on Healthcare Systems During a Pandemic

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, April 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A COVID-19 Test Triage Tool, Predicting Negative Results and Reducing the Testing Burden on Healthcare Systems During a Pandemic
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, April 2021
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2021.563465
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dara J. Lundon, Brian D. Kelly, Sujit Nair, Damien M. Bolton, Gopi Patel, David Reich, Ashutosh Tewari

Abstract

Background: Detecting and isolating cases of COVID-19 are amongst the key elements listed by the WHO to reduce transmission. This approach has been reported to reduce those symptomatic with COVID-19 in the population by over 90%. Testing is part of a strategy that will save lives. Testing everyone maybe ideal, but it is not practical. A risk tool based on patient demographics and clinical parameters has the potential to help identify patients most likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2. If effective it could be used to aide clinical decision making and reduce the testing burden. Methods: At the time of this analysis, a total of 9,516 patients with symptoms suggestive of Covid-19, were assessed and tested at Mount Sinai Institutions in New York. Patient demographics, clinical parameters and test results were collected. A robust prediction pipeline was used to develop a risk tool to predict the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19. The risk tool was analyzed in a holdout dataset from the cohort and its discriminative ability, calibration and net benefit assessed. Results: Over 48% of those tested in this cohort, had a positive result. The derived model had an AUC of 0.77, provided reliable risk prediction, and demonstrated a superior net benefit than a strategy of testing everybody. When a risk cut-off of 70% was applied, the model had a negative predictive value of 96%. Conclusion: Such a tool could be used to help aide but not replace clinical decision making and conserve vital resources needed to effectively tackle this pandemic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Other 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Unknown 9 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 10 59%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 May 2021.
All research outputs
#18,143,395
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,823
of 5,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,440
of 437,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#239
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 437,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.