imperfect test
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

30
(FIVE YEARS 9)

H-INDEX

8
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Alencar de Figueiredo ◽  
Démerson André Polli ◽  
Bernardo Borba de Andrade

Abstract: Using data collected by the Brazilian National Household Sample Survey - COVID-19 (PNAD-COVID19) and semi-Bayesian modelling developed by Wu et al., we have estimated the effect of underreporting of COVID-19 cases in Brazil as of December 2020. The total number of infected individuals is about 3 to 8 times the number of cases reported, depending on the state. Confirmed cases are at 3.1% of the total population and our estimate of total cases is at almost 15% of the approximately 212 million Brazilians as of 2020. The method we adopted from Wu et al., with slight modifications in prior specifications, applies bias corrections to account for incomplete testing and imperfect test accuracy. Our estimates, which are comparable to results obtained by Wu et al. for the United States, indicate that projections from compartmental models (such as SEIR models) tend to overestimate the number of infections and that there is considerable regional heterogeneity (results are presented by state).


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean L. Wu ◽  
Andrew N. Mertens ◽  
Yoshika S. Crider ◽  
Anna Nguyen ◽  
Nolan N. Pokpongkiat ◽  
...  

Abstract Accurate estimates of the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection are critical to informing pandemic response. Confirmed COVID-19 case counts in the U.S. do not capture the total burden of the pandemic because testing has been primarily restricted to individuals with moderate to severe symptoms due to limited test availability. Here, we use a semi-Bayesian probabilistic bias analysis to account for incomplete testing and imperfect diagnostic accuracy. We estimate 6,454,951 cumulative infections compared to 721,245 confirmed cases (1.9% vs. 0.2% of the population) in the United States as of April 18, 2020. Accounting for uncertainty, the number of infections during this period was 3 to 20 times higher than the number of confirmed cases. 86% (simulation interval: 64–99%) of this difference is due to incomplete testing, while 14% (0.3–36%) is due to imperfect test accuracy. The approach can readily be applied in future studies in other locations or at finer spatial scale to correct for biased testing and imperfect diagnostic accuracy to provide a more realistic assessment of COVID-19 burden.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (14) ◽  
pp. 7221-7232
Author(s):  
Sarah K. Helman ◽  
Riley O. Mummah ◽  
Katelyn M. Gostic ◽  
Michael G. Buhnerkempe ◽  
Katherine C. Prager ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean L Wu ◽  
Andrew Mertens ◽  
Yoshika S Crider ◽  
Anna Nguyen ◽  
Nolan N Pokpongkiat ◽  
...  

Accurate estimates of the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection are critical to informing pandemic response. Current confirmed COVID-19 case counts in the U.S. do not capture the total burden of the pandemic because testing has been primarily restricted to individuals with moderate to severe symptoms due to limited test availability. Using a semi-Bayesian probabilistic bias analysis to account for incomplete testing and imperfect diagnostic accuracy, we estimated 6,275,072 cumulative infections compared to 721,245 confirmed cases (1.9% vs. 0.2% of the population) as of April 18, 2020. Accounting for uncertainty, the number of infections was 3 to 20 times higher than the number of confirmed cases. 86% (simulation interval: 64-99%) of this difference was due to incomplete testing, while 14% (0.3-36%) was due to imperfect test accuracy. Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infections that transparently account for testing practices and diagnostic accuracy reveal that the pandemic is larger than confirmed case counts suggest.


2020 ◽  
Vol 178 ◽  
pp. 104790
Author(s):  
Raju Gautam ◽  
Annie Wagener ◽  
Nathalie Bruneau ◽  
Pascale Nerette
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. e7-e8
Author(s):  
Richard Paulson
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document