Optimizing Feedlot Diagnostic Testing Strategies Using Test Characteristics, Disease Prevalence, and Relative Costs of Misdiagnosis

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miles E. Theurer ◽  
Brad J. White ◽  
David G. Renter
2000 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 1691-1698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nimish Vakil ◽  
David Rhew ◽  
Andrew Soll ◽  
Joshua J. Ofman

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory D. Lyng ◽  
Natalie E. Sheils ◽  
Caleb J. Kennedy ◽  
Daniel O. Griffin ◽  
Ethan M. Berke

Background COVID-19 test sensitivity and specificity have been widely examined and discussed, yet optimal use of these tests will depend on the goals of testing, the population or setting, and the anticipated underlying disease prevalence. We model various combinations of key variables to identify and compare a range of effective and practical surveillance strategies for schools and businesses. Methods We coupled a simulated data set incorporating actual community prevalence and test performance characteristics to a susceptible, infectious, removed (SIR) compartmental model, modeling the impact of base and tunable variables including test sensitivity, testing frequency, results lag, sample pooling, disease prevalence, externally-acquired infections, symptom checking, and test cost on outcomes including case reduction and false positives. Findings Increasing testing frequency was associated with a non-linear positive effect on cases averted over 100 days. While precise reductions in cumulative number of infections depended on community disease prevalence, testing every 3 days versus every 14 days (even with a lower sensitivity test) reduces the disease burden substantially. Pooling provided cost savings and made a high-frequency approach practical; one high-performing strategy, testing every 3 days, yielded per person per day costs as low as $1.32. Interpretation A range of practically viable testing strategies emerged for schools and businesses. Key characteristics of these strategies include high frequency testing with a moderate or high sensitivity test and minimal results delay. Sample pooling allowed for operational efficiency and cost savings with minimal loss of model performance.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243692
Author(s):  
Timo de Wolff ◽  
Dirk Pflüger ◽  
Michael Rehme ◽  
Janin Heuer ◽  
Martin-Immanuel Bittner

Objective Rapid testing is paramount during a pandemic to prevent continued viral spread and excess morbidity and mortality. This study investigates whether testing strategies based on sample pooling can increase the speed and throughput of screening for SARS-CoV-2, especially in resource-limited settings. Methods In a mathematical modelling approach conducted in May 2020, six different testing strategies were simulated based on key input parameters such as infection rate, test characteristics, population size, and testing capacity. The situations in five countries were simulated, reflecting a broad variety of population sizes and testing capacities. The primary study outcome measurements were time and number of tests required, number of cases identified, and number of false positives. Findings The performance of all tested methods depends on the input parameters, i.e. the specific circumstances of a screening campaign. To screen one tenth of each country’s population at an infection rate of 1%, realistic optimised testing strategies enable such a campaign to be completed in ca. 29 days in the US, 71 in the UK, 25 in Singapore, 17 in Italy, and 10 in Germany. This is ca. eight times faster compared to individual testing. When infection rates are lower, or when employing an optimal, yet more complex pooling method, the gains are more pronounced. Pool-based approaches also reduce the number of false positive diagnoses by a factor of up to 100. Conclusions The results of this study provide a rationale for adoption of pool-based testing strategies to increase speed and throughput of testing for SARS-CoV-2, hence saving time and resources compared with individual testing.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Berrig ◽  
Viggo Andreasen ◽  
Bjarke Frost Nielsen

Testing strategies have varied widely between nation states during the COVID-19 pandemic, in intensity as well as methodology. Some countries have mainly performed diagnostic testing while others have opted for mass-screening for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 as well. COVID passport solutions have been introduced, in which access to several aspects of public life requires either testing, proof of vaccination or a combination thereof. This creates a coupling between personal activity levels and testing behaviour which, as we show, leverages the heterogeneous behaviours in the population and turns this heterogeneity from a disadvantage to an advantage for epidemic control.


2020 ◽  
Vol 154 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-148
Author(s):  
Lee H Hilborne ◽  
Zachary Wagner ◽  
Irineo Cabreros ◽  
Robert H Brook

Abstract Objectives To determine the public health surveillance severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing volume needed, both for acute infection and seroprevalence. Methods Required testing volumes were developed using standard statistical methods based on test analytical performance, disease prevalence, desired precision, and population size. Results Widespread testing for individual health management cannot address surveillance needs. The number of people who must be sampled for public health surveillance and decision making, although not trivial, is potentially in the thousands for any given population or subpopulation, not millions. Conclusions While the contributions of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 have received considerable attention, concerns abound regarding the availability of sufficient testing capacity to meet demand. Different testing goals require different numbers of tests and different testing strategies; testing strategies for national or local disease surveillance, including monitoring of prevalence, receive less attention. Our clinical laboratory and diagnostic infrastructure are capable of incorporating required volumes for many local, regional, and national public health surveillance studies into their current and projected testing capacity. However, testing for surveillance requires careful design and randomization to provide meaningful insights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document