ArticleThe American statistician2019
Revisiting Nested Group Testing Procedures: New Results, Comparisons, and Robustness.
Article in The American statistician, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Youden index estimation based on group-tested data.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025Article
- The efficient design of Nested Group Testing algorithms for disease identification in clustered data.Journal of applied statistics · 2023Article
- Using group testing in a two-phase epidemiologic design to identify the effects of a large number of antibody reactions on disease risk.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Group Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Allows for Up to 10-Fold Efficiency Increase Across Realistic Scenarios and Testing Strategies.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Group testing has its origin in the identification of syphilis in the U.S. army during World War II. Much of the theoretical framework of group testing was developed starting in the late 1950s, with continued work into the 1990s. Recently, with the advent of new laboratory and genetic technologies, there has been an increasing interest in group testing designs for cost saving purposes. In this article, we compare different nested designs, including Dorfman, Sterrett and an optimal nested procedure obtained through dynamic programming. To elucidate these comparisons, we develop closed-form expressions for the optimal Sterrett procedure and provide a concise review of the prior literature for other commonly used procedures. We consider designs where the prevalence of disease is known as well as investigate the robustness of these procedures, when it is incorrectly assumed. This article provides a technical presentation that will be of interest to researchers as well as from a pedagogical perspective. Supplementary material for this article available online.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.