ArticleIndian journal of medical microbiology2021
Pooled nasopharyngeal swab collection in a single vial for the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 infection: An effective cost saving method.
Article in Indian journal of medical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Effective bubble-based testing for SARS-CoV-2 using swab-pooling.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Evaluation and Clinical Validation of Guanidine-Based Inactivation Transport Medium for Preservation of SARS-CoV-2.Advances in pharmacological and pharmaceutical sciences · 2022Article
- Pooled Testing Strategies for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis: A comprehensive review.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPool testing is one of the strategy to expedite testing capacities while simultaneously conserving various diagnostic kits, reagents and consumables and time. In the present study, we investigated potential role of combined specimen collection technique for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection where five nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from different individuals and pooled together in a single viral transport medium (VTM). MATERIAL AND
methodsThis pilot study was conducted on different cohorts of Delhi state. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each enrolled individual. One swab was put into VTM vial to be further used for individual swab testing (ID). The other swab was put into a fresh VTM for pool swab collection. Each pool comprised five swabs collected from five different patients in one VTM vial. Both IDs and pools were tested in parallel for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using real time PCR.
resultsA total of 46 pools were collected from 230 enrolled individuals.Among 230 ID tested, 60 were found to be positive for both E and RdRp gene. Among 46 pools, 25 pools included all negatives samples and remaining 21 pools included one or more positives. Comparing ID with pool results, overall concordance was seen in 42 pools (91.3%). Four pools showed false positive results as all included samples on ID testing were found to be negative. Considering ID results as reference, swab pool showed 100% sensitivity, 84% specificity, 84% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value.
conclusionThe pooling of swab strategy could be beneficial only among asymptomatic in low prevalence areas.
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.