ArticleThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS2021
Pooled Specimen Testing Using Automated Cartridge-Based System for COVID-19: The Cost on Sensitivity.
Article in The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPooled specimen screening for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can improve laboratory testing capacity. This study assessed the impact of pooling and retesting individual swabs on the overall detection rate and reduction in the frequency of retesting.
methodsOne hundred respiratory swabs specimens were tested individually and in pools of three or five samples using the Cepheid's Xpert
resultsTwenty-five pools were generated from 101 samples. Out of 13 pools that contained five samples each, three pools gave true positive results. While out of the 12 pools that contained three samples each, five pools gave true positive results. Four samples gave a false negative pool result. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the assay in the pools were 66.6% and 100%, respectively. The cycle threshold was reduced in most of the pools compared to individual sample tests.
conclusionThe overall pooled test had a remarkable impact on laboratory resources. Yet, caution is warranted when selecting the cases for pooled testing, since the reduction in sensitivity can significantly impact and increase the risk of exposure to infection.
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.