ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
Evaluation of automated molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance evaluation of GenXplore q4800: a novel open-platform automated nucleic acid testing system.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and evaluation of three automated media pooling and molecular diagnostic systems for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploring the relationship between intimate partner violence during pregnancy and stillbirths.Injury · 2023Article
- Molecular Detection of Neglected Tropical Diseases: The Case for Automated Near-Point-of-Care Diagnosis of Leishmaniasis.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- Evaluation of automated molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
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
backgroundPooling of samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing in low-prevalence settings has been used as an effective strategy to expand testing capacity and mitigate challenges with the shortage of supplies. We evaluated two automated molecular test systems for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pooled specimens.
methodsPooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens were tested by Qiagen QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat) or Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert), and the results were compared to that of standard RT-qPCR tests without pooling.
resultsIn nasopharyngeal specimens, the sensitivity/specificity of the pool testing approach, with 5 and 10 specimens per pool, were 77%/100% (n = 105) and 74.1%/100% (n = 260) by QIAstat, and 97.1%/100% (n = 250) and 100%/99.5% (n = 200) by Xpert, respectively. Pool testing of saliva (10 specimens per pool; n = 150) by Xpert resulted in 87.5% sensitivity and 99.3% specificity compared to individual tests. Pool size of 5 or 10 specimens did not significantly affect the difference of RT-qPCR cycle threshold (C
conclusionOur results suggest that Xpert SARS-CoV-2 can be utilized for pooled sample testing for COVID-19 screening in low-prevalence settings providing significant cost savings and improving throughput without affecting test quality.
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.