ArticleBiological procedures online2021
Pooling Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens to Improve Testing Capacity for SARS-CoV-2 by Real-Time RT-PCR.
Article in Biological procedures online, 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.
- Comparison of RT-PCR cycle threshold values between individual and pooled SARS-CoV-2 infected nasopharyngeal swab specimens.Narra J · 2024Article
- Underscoring the effect of swab type, workflow, and positive sample order on swab pooling for COVID-19 surveillance testing.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The COVID-19 laboratory response in Timor-Leste; a story of collaboration.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2023Review
- Using Real-Time PCR Fluorescence Reaction Values to Improve SARS-CoV-2 Virus Detection and Benefit Clinical Decision-Making.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Boosting SARS-CoV-2 detection combining pooling and multiplex strategies.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- An improvement of current hypercube pooling PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe detection of SARS-CoV-2 using qRT-PCR with the pooling of samples can reduce workload and costs especially when the prevalence rate of COVID-19 in a population is low. To analyse the effect of pooling samples on the sensitivity of RT-qPCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection, we compared the cycle threshold (Ct) values of pools of 5 and 10 that tested positive with Ct values of individual samples that tested positive in that pool. Twenty positive nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens with low to high viral load were selected and pooled individually with four and nine negative NP.
resultsIn NP specimens, the sensitivity of pools of 5 and 10 were 90 and 85%, compared to individual sample testing, respectively. The RT-qPCR sensitivity of pools of 5 and 10 against individual testing were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Detection of positive samples with low Ct values (< 36) was consistently achieved in pools of 5 and 10. However, there were higher false negatives when samples with high ct values (> 36) were pooled and tested. The mean C
conclusionsIn a low prevalence setting, testing capacity can be increased by pooling 5 or 10 samples, but the risk of additional false negatives needs to be considered.
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.