ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2020
Pooling of Upper Respiratory Specimens Using a SARS-CoV-2 Real-time RT-PCR Assay Authorized for Emergency Use in Low-Prevalence Populations for High-Throughput Testing.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mass SARS-CoV-2 testing in US correctional facilities during the pandemic: a longitudinal analysis.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Development and evaluation of three automated media pooling and molecular diagnostic systems for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Strategies for Scaling up SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing Capacity.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Boosting SARS-CoV-2 detection combining pooling and multiplex strategies.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Pooled Testing Strategies for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis: A comprehensive review.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2021Review
- Performance of Unobserved Self-Collected Nasal Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR Utilizing a Remote Specimen Collection Strategy.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Model for Mitigation of Workplace Transmission of COVID-19 Through Population-Based Testing and Surveillance.Population health management · 2021Review
- Pathology Informatics and Robotics Strategies for Improving Efficiency of COVID-19 Pooled Testing.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNucleic acid amplification testing is a critical tool for addressing the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Specimen pooling can increase throughput and conserve testing resources but requires validation to ensure that reduced sensitivity does not increase the false-negative rate. We evaluated the performance of a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use for pooled testing of upper respiratory specimens.
methodsPositive specimens were selected from 3 prevalence groups, 1%-3%, >3%-6%, and >6%-10%. Positive percent agreement (PPA) was assessed by pooling single-positive specimens with 3 negative specimens; performance was assessed using Passing-Bablok regression. Additionally, we assessed the distributions of RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for 3091 positive specimens.
resultsPPA was 100% for the 101 pooled specimens. There was a linear relationship between Ct values for pooled and single-tested specimens (
conclusionsPooled and individual testing of specimens positive for SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated 100% agreement, which demonstrates the viability of pooled specimens for SARS-COV-2 testing using a dual-target RT-PCR system. Pooled specimen testing can help increase testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 with a low risk of false-negative results.
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.