Abstract
Background Rapid tests for COVID-19 could be used to augment the otherwise limited laboratory-based testing capacity, but there are concerns that their utility may be compromised by their limited accuracy. The objective of this article is to compare the expected benefit (EB) of two screening strategies, one with rapid tests (SwRT) and another one without rapid tests 
.
Methods We performed a decision analysis, with the overall EB defined as the proportion of correctly identified individuals minus the proportion of incorrectly identified individuals. Accordingly, the SwRT strategy will be deemed a better screening strategy if its lesser EB for COVID-19 free individuals is more than compensated by its greater EB for COVID-19 individuals. Otherwise, it will not.
Results As expected, the EB for COVID-19 individuals was greater for the SwRT strategy, with a far superior ability to rule out the presence of COVID-19. In fact, under the scenario of interest (i.e., 8000 ID Now rapid tests in addition to 28185 lab-based RT-PCR tests), it identified almost 16% more COVID-19 individuals than the 
strategy. In addition, the EB for COVID-19 free individuals was the same for both strategies, with a perfect ability at ruling in the presence of COVID-19.
Conclusion The SwRT strategy identified more COVID-19 individuals and this gain was not obtained at the detriment of COVID-19 free individuals who were equally well identified by both strategies. Hence, the SwRT strategy is a better screening strategy for COVID-19. It represents an opportunity to curtail the spread of SARS-CoV-2 that we may not afford to miss with new more contagious variants becoming more and more common in Canada.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors did not receive 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 research did not require IRB approval.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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 the relevant data are available in the manuscript.
