Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33262937›Full record

ArticleAnnals of global health2020

Simple Questionnaires to Improve Pooling Strategies for SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory Testing.

Sophie Schneitler, Philipp Jung, Florian Bub, Farah Alhussein, Sophia Benthien, Fabian K Berger, Barbara Berkó-Göttel, Janina Eisenbeis, Daphne Hahn, Alexander Halfmann and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Pooled Testing Strategies for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis: A comprehensive review.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 through pool testing for COVID-19: an integrative review.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Sophie SchneitlerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Philipp JungInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Florian BubInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Farah AlhusseinInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Sophia BenthienInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Fabian K BergerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Barbara Berkó-GöttelInstitute of Virology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Janina EisenbeisInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Daphne HahnDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Alexander HalfmannInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Katharina LastInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Maximilian LinxweilerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Stefan LohseInstitute of Virology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Cihan PapanInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Thorsten PfuhlInstitute of Virology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Jürgen RisslandInstitute of Virology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Sophie RothInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Uwe SchlotthauerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Jürg UtzingerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, CH.
Sigrun SmolaInstitute of Virology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Barbara C GärtnerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.
Sören L BeckerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, DE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Liberal PCR testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is key to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Combined multi-sample testing in pools instead of single tests might enhance laboratory capacity and reduce costs, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: The purpose of our study was to assess the value of a simple questionnaire to guide and further improve pooling strategies for SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing. Methods: Pharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing were obtained from healthcare and police staff, hospital inpatients, and nursing home residents in the southwestern part of Germany. We designed a simple questionnaire, which included questions pertaining to a suggestive clinical symptomatology, recent travel history, and contact with confirmed cases to stratify an individual's pre-test probability of having contracted COVID-19. The questionnaire was adapted repeatedly in face of the unfolding pandemic in response to the evolving epidemiology and observed clinical symptomatology. Based on the response patterns, samples were either tested individually or in multi-sample pools. We compared the pool positivity rate and the number of total PCR tests required to obtain individual results between this questionnaire-based pooling strategy and randomly assembled pools. Findings: Between March 11 and July 5, 2020, we processed 25,978 samples using random pooling (n = 6,012; 23.1%) or questionnaire-based pooling (n = 19,966; 76.9%). The overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 0.9% (n = 238). Pool positivity (14.6% vs. 1.2%) and individual SARS-CoV-2 prevalence (3.4% vs. 0.1%) were higher in the random pooling group than in the questionnaire group. The average number of PCR tests needed to obtain the individual result for one participant was 0.27 tests in the random pooling group, as compared to 0.09 in the questionnaire-based pooling group, leading to a laboratory capacity increase of 73% and 91%, respectively, as compared to single PCR testing. Conclusions: Strategies that combine pool testing with a questionnaire-based risk stratification can increase laboratory testing capacities for COVID-19 and might be important tools, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesClinical Laboratory ServicesCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingGermanyHumansPharynxPrevalenceRandom AllocationReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33262937
PMCPMC7678556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.