Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

“No test is better than a bad test”: Impact of diagnostic uncertainty in mass testing on the spread of COVID-19

View ORCID ProfileNicholas Gray, View ORCID ProfileDominic Calleja, View ORCID ProfileAlexander Wimbush, View ORCID ProfileEnrique Miralles-Dolz, View ORCID ProfileAnder Gray, Marco De-Angelis, Elfriede Derrer-Merk, Bright Uchenna Oparaji, Vladimir Stepanov, Louis Clearkin, View ORCID ProfileScott Ferson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20067884
Nicholas Gray
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicholas Gray
  • For correspondence: nickgray@liverpool.ac.uk covid19@riskinstitute.uk
Dominic Calleja
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Dominic Calleja
Alexander Wimbush
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alexander Wimbush
Enrique Miralles-Dolz
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Enrique Miralles-Dolz
Ander Gray
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ander Gray
Marco De-Angelis
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elfriede Derrer-Merk
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bright Uchenna Oparaji
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vladimir Stepanov
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louis Clearkin
2Wirral & Liverpool University Teaching Hospitals, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Ferson
1Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Scott Ferson
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Testing is viewed as a critical aspect of any strategy to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of the dialogue around testing has concentrated on how countries can scale up capacity, but the uncertainty in testing has not received nearly as much attention beyond asking if a test is accurate enough to be used. Even for highly accurate tests, false positives and false negatives will accumulate as mass testing strategies are employed under pressure, and these misdiagnoses could have major implications on the ability of governments to suppress the virus. The present analysis uses a modified SIR model to understand the implication and magnitude of misdiagnosis in the context of ending lock-down measures. The results indicate that increased testing capacity alone will not provide a solution to lock-down measures in the UK. The progression of the epidemic and peak infections is shown to depend heavily on test characteristics, test targeting, and prevalence of the infection. Antibody based immunity passports are rejected as a solution to ending lockdown, as they can put the population at risk if poorly targeted. Similarly, mass screening for active viral infection may only be beneficial if it can be sufficiently well targeted, otherwise reliance on this approach for protection of the population can again put them at risk. A well targeted active viral test combined with a slow release rate is a viable strategy for continuous suppression of the virus.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work has been partially funded by the EPSRC IAA exploration award with grant number EP/R511729/1, EPSRC programme grant "Digital twins for improved dynamic design", EP/R006768/1, and the EPSRC and ESRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Quantification and Management of Risk and Uncertainty in Complex Systems and Environments, EP/L015927/1.

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data can be made available

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted May 06, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
“No test is better than a bad test”: Impact of diagnostic uncertainty in mass testing on the spread of COVID-19
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
“No test is better than a bad test”: Impact of diagnostic uncertainty in mass testing on the spread of COVID-19
Nicholas Gray, Dominic Calleja, Alexander Wimbush, Enrique Miralles-Dolz, Ander Gray, Marco De-Angelis, Elfriede Derrer-Merk, Bright Uchenna Oparaji, Vladimir Stepanov, Louis Clearkin, Scott Ferson
medRxiv 2020.04.16.20067884; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20067884
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
“No test is better than a bad test”: Impact of diagnostic uncertainty in mass testing on the spread of COVID-19
Nicholas Gray, Dominic Calleja, Alexander Wimbush, Enrique Miralles-Dolz, Ander Gray, Marco De-Angelis, Elfriede Derrer-Merk, Bright Uchenna Oparaji, Vladimir Stepanov, Louis Clearkin, Scott Ferson
medRxiv 2020.04.16.20067884; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20067884

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (168)
  • Anesthesia (49)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (448)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (80)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (157)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (190)
  • Epidemiology (5214)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (194)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (749)
  • Geriatric Medicine (76)
  • Health Economics (212)
  • Health Informatics (694)
  • Health Policy (352)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (222)
  • Hematology (98)
  • HIV/AIDS (162)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5814)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (356)
  • Medical Education (102)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (80)
  • Neurology (758)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (129)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (141)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (231)
  • Oncology (475)
  • Ophthalmology (149)
  • Orthopedics (38)
  • Otolaryngology (93)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (19)
  • Pathology (139)
  • Pediatrics (223)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (136)
  • Primary Care Research (96)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (853)
  • Public and Global Health (1992)
  • Radiology and Imaging (343)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (156)
  • Respiratory Medicine (283)
  • Rheumatology (93)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (72)
  • Sports Medicine (75)
  • Surgery (108)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (39)