IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v52y2022i6p524-538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Test Accuracy and Effective Control of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study in Singapore

Author

Listed:
  • Guang Cheng

    (Institute of Operations Research and Analytics, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117602)

  • Sarah Yini Gao

    (Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University, Singapore 178899)

  • Yancheng Yuan

    (Department of Applied Mathematics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong)

  • Chenxiao Zhang

    (Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University, Singapore 178899)

  • Zhichao Zheng

    (Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University, Singapore 178899)

Abstract

This study examines the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test accuracy (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) on the progression of the pandemic under two scenarios of limited and unlimited test capacity. We extend the classic susceptible– exposed–infectious–recovered model to incorporate test accuracy and compare the progression of the pandemic under various sensitivities and specificities. We find that high-sensitivity tests effectively reduce the total number of infections only with sufficient testing capacity. Nevertheless, with limited test capacity and a relatively high cross-infection rate, the total number of infected cases may increase when sensitivity is above a certain threshold. Despite the potential for higher sensitivity tests to identify more infected individuals, more false positive cases occur, which wastes limited testing capacity, slowing down the detection of infected cases. Our findings reveal that improving test sensitivity alone does not always lead to effective pandemic control, indicating that policymakers should balance the trade-off between high sensitivity and high false positive rates when designing containment measures for infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, particularly when navigating limited test capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Guang Cheng & Sarah Yini Gao & Yancheng Yuan & Chenxiao Zhang & Zhichao Zheng, 2022. "On the Test Accuracy and Effective Control of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study in Singapore," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 524-538, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:52:y:2022:i:6:p:524-538
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.2022.1117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.2022.1117
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.2022.1117?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Littenberg & Lincoln E. Moses, 1993. "Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy from Multiple Conflicting Reports," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 313-321, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jia Song & Jixiang Zhang & Jun Wang & Xufeng Guo & Jing Wang & Ya Liu & Weiguo Dong, 2014. "Meta-Analysis: Narrow Band Imaging for Diagnosis of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-8, April.
    2. Philipp Doebler & Heinz Holling, 2015. "Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and ROC Curves with Covariate Adjusted Semiparametric Mixtures," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 1084-1104, December.
    3. James C. Felli & Gordon B. Hazen, 2004. "Javelin Diagrams: A Graphical Tool for Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 93-107, June.
    4. Daphne I Ling & Laura L Flores & Lee W Riley & Madhukar Pai, 2008. "Commercial Nucleic-Acid Amplification Tests for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Respiratory Specimens: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(2), pages 1-11, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:52:y:2022:i:6:p:524-538. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.