ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Evaluation of pooling of samples for testing SARS-CoV- 2 for mass screening of COVID-19.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient high-risk human papillomavirus screening through pooled testing: a simulation study based on real-world data in low- and middle-income countries.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Informing optimal testing and isolation strategies across different stages of the diagnostic development pipeline using mathematical models: SARS-CoV-2 in the UK as a case study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants using pooled WGS.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of viral load on sample pooling for reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction detection-based diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 in Nigeria.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Fecal Sample Pooling for Real-Time RT-PCR Testing SARS-CoV-2 in Animals.Viruses · 2024Article
- Comparison of RT-PCR cycle threshold values between individual and pooled SARS-CoV-2 infected nasopharyngeal swab specimens.Narra J · 2024Article
- Strategies for Increasing the Throughput of Genetic Screening: Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic within a University Community.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2024Article
- Evaluations of modes of pooling specimens for COVID-19 screened by quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Development and validation of cost-effective SYBR Green-based RT-qPCR and its evaluation in a sample pooling strategy for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Indonesian setting.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Four Strategies for SARS-CoV-2 Detection: Characteristics and Prospects.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Accelerating the Laboratory Testing Capacity through Saliva Pooling Prior to Direct RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Identification of mutations in SARS-CoV-2 PCR primer regions.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Digital PCR Applications in the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Era: a Roadmap for Future Outbreaks.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Approaches to Deployment of Molecular Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Resource-Limited Settings.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Strategies for Scaling up SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing Capacity.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- Mass screening is a key component to fight against SARS-CoV-2 and return to normalcy.Medical review (2021) · 2022Review
- A Regional Pooling Intervention in a High-Throughput COVID-19 Diagnostic Laboratory to Enhance Throughput, Save Resources and Time Over a Period of 6 Months.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Article
- SARS-CoV-2 detection in multi-sample pools in a real pandemic scenario: A screening strategy of choice for active surveillance.PloS one · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current pandemic of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, widely known as COVID-19, has affected millions of people around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended vigorous testing to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 from other respiratory infections to aid in guiding appropriate care and management. Situations like this have demanded robust testing strategies and pooled testing of samples for SARS-CoV-2 virus has provided the solution to mass screening of people for COVID-19. A pooled testing strategy can be very effective in testing when resources are limited, yet it comes with its own limitations. These benefits and limitations need critical consideration when it comes to testing highly infectious diseases like COVID-19.
methodsThis study evaluated the pooled testing of nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-COV-2 by comparing the sensitivity of individual sample testing with 4-and 8-pool sample testing. Median cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared, and the precision of pooled testing was assessed through an inter- and intra-assay of pooled samples. Coefficient of variance was calculated for inter- and intra-assay variability.
resultsThe sensitivity becomes considerably lower when the samples are pooled. There is a high percentage of false negative reports with larger sample pool size and when the patient viral load is low or weak positive samples. High variability was seen in the intra- and inter-assay, especially among weak positive samples and when more number of samples are pooled together.
conclusionAs COVID - 19 infection numbers and need for testing remain high, we must meticulously evaluate the testing strategy for each country depending on its testing capacity, infrastructure, economic strength, and need to determine the optimal balance on the cost-effective strategy of resource saving and risk/ cost of missing positive patients.
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.