ArticlePloS one2021
A robust pooled testing approach to expand COVID-19 screening capacity.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a field deployable, high-throughput RT-LAMP device as an early warning system for COVID-19 through SARS-CoV-2 measurements in wastewater.The Science of the total environment · 2024Article
- A proactive/reactive mass screening approach with uncertain symptomatic cases.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- The Role and Value of Professional Rapid Testing of Acute Respiratory Infections (ARIs) in Europe: A Special Focus on the Czech Republic, Poland, and Romania.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Optimization of Screening Strategies for COVID-19: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Epidemiological contemplation for a currently pragmatic COVID-19 health passport: a perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- Adaptive group testing strategy for infectious diseases using social contact graph partitions.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Machine learning for optimal test admission in the presence of resource constraints.Health care management science · 2023Article
- The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on community respiratory virus activity.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2023Review
- Optimal COVID-19 testing strategy on limited resources.PloS one · 2023Article
- Statistical modeling and evaluation of the impact of multiplicity classification thresholds on the COVID-19 pool testing accuracy.PloS one · 2023Article
- Strategies for Scaling up SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing Capacity.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 genome detection by real-time PCR assay using pooled specimens.Future virology · 2022Article
- Epidemiologic characteristics and differential management strategies of seven case series with COVID-19 outbreaks caused by asymptomatic carriers from June 2020 to May 2021 in China.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 detection by real time polymerase chain reaction using pooling strategy of nasal samples.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Practical considerations to establish a validated platform for pooled detection of SARS-CoV-2 by droplet digital PCR.PloS one · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing of pooled saliva samples: A case study of 824 asymptomatic individuals and a questionnaire survey in Japan.PloS one · 2022Article
- Safe and effective pool testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2021Article
- A discussion on the minimum required number of tests in two common pooling test methods for SARS-CoV-2.Epidemiology and infection · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited testing capacity for COVID-19 has hampered the pandemic response. Pooling is a testing method wherein samples from specimens (e.g., swabs) from multiple subjects are combined into a pool and screened with a single test. If the pool tests positive, then new samples from the collected specimens are individually tested, while if the pool tests negative, the subjects are classified as negative for the disease. Pooling can substantially expand COVID-19 testing capacity and throughput, without requiring additional resources. We develop a mathematical model to determine the best pool size for different risk groups, based on each group's estimated COVID-19 prevalence. Our approach takes into consideration the sensitivity and specificity of the test, and a dynamic and uncertain prevalence, and provides a robust pool size for each group. For practical relevance, we also develop a companion COVID-19 pooling design tool (through a spread sheet). To demonstrate the potential value of pooling, we study COVID-19 screening using testing data from Iceland for the period, February-28-2020 to June-14-2020, for subjects stratified into high- and low-risk groups. We implement the robust pooling strategy within a sequential framework, which updates pool sizes each week, for each risk group, based on prior week's testing data. Robust pooling reduces the number of tests, over individual testing, by 88.5% to 90.2%, and 54.2% to 61.9%, respectively, for the low-risk and high-risk groups (based on test sensitivity values in the range [0.71, 0.98] as reported in the literature). This results in much shorter times, on average, to get the test results compared to individual testing (due to the higher testing throughput), and also allows for expanded screening to cover more individuals. Thus, robust pooling can potentially be a valuable strategy for COVID-19 screening.
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.