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

Are fast test results preferable to high test sensitivity in contact-tracing strategies?

View ORCID ProfileJonas L. Juul, Kaare Græsbøll
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.17.21251921
Jonas L. Juul
1Center for Applied Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonas L. Juul
  • For correspondence: jjuul@cornell.edu
Kaare Græsbøll
2Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, 2800-DK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Across the world, countries are fighting to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The backbone of the response is a test-trace-isolate strategy, where suspected infected get tested and isolated and possible secondary cases get traced, tested and isolated. Because more accurate tests often take longer to analyze, and the benefits of contact tracing are strengthened by rapid diagnosis, there exists a trade-off in test sensitivity and test waiting time in test-trace-isolate strategies. Here we ask: How many false negatives can be tolerated in a rapid test so that it reduces transmission better than a slower, more accurate test? How does this change with contact tracing efficiency and test waiting time? We find that a rapid, less sensitive test performs best for many test-parameter choices and that this is true even for modest contact tracing efficiency. For COVID-19-like viral parameters, a test with 40% false negatives and immediate result might reduce transmission as well as a test with no false negatives and a 3-day waiting time. Our analysis suggests employing rapid tests to reduce test waiting times as a viable strategy to reduce transmission when testing infrastructure is under stress.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work was partially funded by Statens Serum Institut (SSI).

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:

Cornell University

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

The code and data necessary to reproduce the content of this paper is available on www.github.org/jonassjuul/TestTraceTradeoff

https://www.github.org/jonassjuul/TestTraceTradeoff

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 February 19, 2021.
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.
Are fast test results preferable to high test sensitivity in contact-tracing strategies?
(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
Are fast test results preferable to high test sensitivity in contact-tracing strategies?
Jonas L. Juul, Kaare Græsbøll
medRxiv 2021.02.17.21251921; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.17.21251921
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Are fast test results preferable to high test sensitivity in contact-tracing strategies?
Jonas L. Juul, Kaare Græsbøll
medRxiv 2021.02.17.21251921; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.17.21251921

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

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (280)
  • Allergy and Immunology (579)
  • Anesthesia (139)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1943)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (252)
  • Dermatology (184)
  • Emergency Medicine (333)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (698)
  • Epidemiology (11098)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (622)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3164)
  • Geriatric Medicine (308)
  • Health Economics (561)
  • Health Informatics (2042)
  • Health Policy (862)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (782)
  • Hematology (310)
  • HIV/AIDS (682)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12714)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (707)
  • Medical Education (317)
  • Medical Ethics (92)
  • Nephrology (334)
  • Neurology (2981)
  • Nursing (164)
  • Nutrition (463)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (589)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (614)
  • Oncology (1549)
  • Ophthalmology (476)
  • Orthopedics (185)
  • Otolaryngology (266)
  • Pain Medicine (202)
  • Palliative Medicine (57)
  • Pathology (402)
  • Pediatrics (912)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (381)
  • Primary Care Research (355)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2782)
  • Public and Global Health (5588)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1092)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (631)
  • Respiratory Medicine (759)
  • Rheumatology (338)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (311)
  • Sports Medicine (289)
  • Surgery (343)
  • Toxicology (48)
  • Transplantation (159)
  • Urology (132)