Abstract
Objectives The primary aim was to evaluate whether randomly sampling and testing a set number of individuals for active or past COVID-19 while adjusting for misclassification error captures a simulated prevalence. The secondary aim was to quantify the impact of misclassification error bias on publicly reported case data in Maryland.
Methods Using a stratified random sampling approach, 50,000 individuals were selected from a simulated Maryland population to estimate the prevalence of active and past COVID-19. Data from the 2014-2018 and 2018 American Community Surveys were used. The simulated prevalence was 0.5% and 1.0% for active and past COVID-19, respectively. Bayesian models, informed by published validity estimates, were used to account for misclassification error when estimating the prevalence of active and past COVID-19.
Results Failure to account for misclassification error overestimated the simulated prevalence for active and past COVID-19. Adjustment for misclassification error decreased the point estimate for active and past COVID-19 prevalence by 55% and 29%, respectively. Adjustment for sampling method and misclassification error only captured the simulated past COVID-19 prevalence. The simulated active COVID-19 prevalence was only captured when set to 0.7% and above. Adjustment for misclassification error for publicly reported Maryland data increased the estimated average daily cases by 8%.
Conclusions Random sampling and testing of COVID-19 is needed but must be accompanied by adjustment for misclassification error to avoid over- or underestimating the prevalence. This approach bolsters disease control efforts. Implementing random testing for active COVID-19 may be best in a smaller geographic area with highly prevalent cases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the MITRE Corporation. The authors did not receive external funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This work was approved by the MITRE Corporation's Information Release Office. This study does not constitute human subjects research, and therefore, IRB approval or exemption was not needed.
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
Footnotes
Revised typo in Abstract and Results sections of manuscript.
Data Availability
Data are not publicly available but can be requested by contacting the corresponding author.
