LAUSR

Testing and case identification are key strategies in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Contact tracing and isolation are only possible if cases have been identified. The effectiveness of testing should be assessed, but a single comprehensive metric is not available to assess testing effectiveness, and no timely estimates of case detection rate are available globally, making inter-country comparisons difficult. The purpose of this paper was to propose a single, comprehensive metric, called the COVID-19 Testing Index (CovTI) scaled from 0 to 100, derived from epidemiological indicators of testing, and to identify factors associated with this outcome. The index was based on case-fatality rate, test positivity rate, active cases, and an estimate of the detection rate. It used parsimonious modeling to estimate the true total number of COVID-19 cases based on deaths, testing, health system capacity, and government transparency. Publicly reported data from 165 countries and territories that had reported at least 100 confirmed cases by June 3, 2020 were included in the index. Estimates of detection rates aligned satisfactorily with previous estimates in literature (R2 = 0.44). As of June 3, 2020, the states with the highest CovTI included Hong Kong (93.7), Australia (93.5), Iceland (91.8), Cambodia (91.3), New Zealand (90.6), Vietnam (90.2), and Taiwan (89.9). Bivariate analyses showed the mean CovTI in countries with open public testing policies (66.9, 95% CI 61.0–72.8) was significantly higher than in countries with no testing policy (29.7, 95% CI 17.6–41.9) (p<0.0001). A multiple linear regression model assessed the association of independent grouping variables with CovTI. Open public testing and extensive contact tracing were shown to significantly increase CovTI, after adjusting for extrinsic factors, including geographic isolation and centralized forms of government. The correlation of testing and contact tracing policies with improved outcomes demonstrates the validity of this model to assess testing effectiveness and also suggests these policies were effective at improving health outcomes. This tool can be combined with other databases to identify other factors or may be useful as a standalone tool to help inform policymakers.