ArticleJournal of virological methods2022
Evaluation of sample pooling using the SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 test.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increasing SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity through specimen pooling: An acute care center experience.PloS one · 2023Article
- Effect of swab pooling on the Accula point-of-care RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Highly Sensitive Detection Method for HV69-70del in SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Omicron Variants Based on CRISPR/Cas13a.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening of infectious asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals for SARS-CoV-2 is at present a key to controling the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to expand testing capability and limit cost, pool testing of asymtomatic individuals has been proposed, provided assay performance is not significantly affected.
methodsCombined nose and throat (N/T) swabs collected from COVID-19 infected or non-infected individuals were tested using SAMBA II individually and in pools of four (one positive and 3 negative). The evaluation was conducted by the manufacturer and an independent NHS site. Ct cycles of individual positives and pooled positives were determined by qRT-PCR.
resultsIn 42 pools containing a single positive sample with Ct values ranging between 17 and 36, 41 pools (97.6 %) were found positive by the SARS-CoV-2 SAMBA II test. The false-negative pool by SAMBA was also negative by both reference methods used in this evaluation.The individual positive sample in this pool was positive by SAMBA (Orf only) and by one of the reference methods (S gene only, Ct 35) but negative by the second reference method indicating that the sample itself was very low viral load. All 78 pools containing 4 negative swabs were negative (100 % specificity). DISCUSSION: The preliminary data of the evaluation indicated a high level of performance in both sensitivity and specificity of the SAMBA II assay when used to test pools of 4 patient samples. The implementation of this pooled protocol can increase throughput and reduce cost/test when the prevalence of COVID is low.
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.