Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34499947›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of infection2021

Clinical performance and accuracy of a qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 mass-screening workflow for healthcare-worker surveillance using pooled self-sampled gargling solutions: A cross-sectional study.

Flaminia Olearo, Dominik Nörz, Armin Hoffman, Moritz Grunwald, Kimani Gatzemeyer, Martin Christner, Anna Both, Cristina Elena Belmar Campos, Platon Braun, Gabriele Andersen and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of infection, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Flaminia OlearoCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Dominik NörzCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Armin HoffmanCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Moritz GrunwaldCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Kimani GatzemeyerCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Martin ChristnerCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Anna BothCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Cristina Elena Belmar CamposCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Platon BraunDepartment of Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Gabriele AndersenDepartment of Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Susanne PfefferleCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany; German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Hamburg-Lübeck-Borstel-Riems, Germany.
Antonia ZapfCenter for Experimental Medicine, Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin AepfelbacherCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Johannes K M KnoblochCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany.
Marc LütgehetmannCenter for Diagnostics, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg D-20246, Germany; German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Hamburg-Lübeck-Borstel-Riems, Germany. Electronic address: mluetgeh@uke.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe large number of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections necessitates general screening of employees. We evaluate the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 screening program in asymptomatic healthcare-workers (HCW), utilizing self-sampled gargling-solution and sample pooling for RT-qPCR.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study to collect real-life data on the performance of a screening-workflow based on automated-pooling and high-throughput qPCR testing over a 3-month-period at the University Hospital Hamburg.

resultsMatrix validation reveals that lower limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in gargling-solution was 180 copies/mL (5-sample-pool). A total of 55,122 self-collected gargle samples (= 7513 HCWs) was analyzed. The median time to result was 8.5 hours (IQR 7.2-10.8). Of 11,192 pools analyzed, 11,041 (98.7%) were negative, 69 (0.6%) were positive and 82 (0.7%) were invalid. Individual testing of pool participants revealed 57 SARS-CoV-2 previously unrecognized infections. All 57 HCWs were either pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic (prevalence 0.76%,CI95%0.58-0.98%). Accuracy based on HCWs with gargle-solution and NP-swab available within 3-day-interval (N = 521) was 99.5% (CI95%98.3-99.9%), sensitivity 88.9% (CI95%65.3-98.6%) while specificity 99.8% (CI95%98.9-99.9).

conclusionThis workflow was highly effective in identifying SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs, thereby lowering the potential of inter-HCW and HCW-patient transmissions. Automated-sample-pooling helped to conserve qPCR reagents and represents a promising alternative strategy to antigen testing in mass-screening programs.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Cross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareHumansRetrospective StudiesRNA, ViralWorkflowRNA, ViralMass screeningPooling gargle solutionSARS coronavirus 2 RT-PCR testing

Identifiers

PMID34499947
PMCPMC8420133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.