RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Correlation of population mortality of COVID-19 and testing coverage: a comparison among 36 OECD countries and Taiwan
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.27.20113969
DO 10.1101/2020.05.27.20113969
A1 Wei, Chen
A1 Lee, Chien-Chang
A1 Hsu, Tzu-Chun
A1 Hsu, Wan-Ting
A1 Chan, Chang-Chuan
A1 Chen, Shyr-Chyr
A1 Chen, Chien-Jen
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/29/2020.05.27.20113969.abstract
AB Although testing is widely regarded as critical to fighting the Covid-19 pandemic, what measure and level of testing best reflects successful infection control remains unresolved. Our aim was to compare the sensitivity of two testing metrics-population testing number and testing coverage-to population mortality outcomes and identify a benchmark for testing adequacy with respect to population mortality and capture of potential disease burden. This ecological study aggregated publicly available data through April 12 on testing and outcomes related to COVID-19 across 36 OECD (Organization for Economic Development) countries and Taiwan. All OECD countries and Taiwan were included in this population-based study as a proxy for countries with highly developed economic and healthcare infrastructure. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between the aforementioned metrics and following outcome measures: deaths per 1 million people, case fatality rate, and case proportion of critical illness. Fractional polynomials were used to generate scatter plots to model the relationship between the testing metrics and outcomes. Testing coverage, but not population testing number, was highly correlated with population mortality (rs= −0.79, P=5.975e-09 vs rs = − 0.3, P=0.05) and case fatality rate (rs= −0.67, P=9.067e-06 vs rs= −0.21, P=0.20). A testing coverage threshold of 15-45 signified adequate testing: below 15, testing coverage was associated with exponentially increasing population mortality, whereas above 45, increased testing did not yield significant incremental mortality benefit. Testing coverage was better than population testing number in explaining country performance and can be used as an early and sensitive indicator of testing adequacy and disease burden. This may be particularly useful as countries consider re-opening their economies.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was considered IRB-exempt as it involved analysis of de-identified, publicly available datasetsAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesWe have provided our data as a supplementary file.