ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Cost analysis of coronavirus disease 2019 test strategies using pooled reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction technique.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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.
- Enhancing RT-PCR Throughput and Sensitivity through Large-Scale Sample Pooling Using a Nano-Hybrid Membrane.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Optimization of Screening Strategies for COVID-19: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Cost analysis of coronavirus disease 2019 test strategies using pooled reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction technique.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the testing strategies for COVID-19 (i.e., individual, simple pooling, and matrix pooling) in terms of cost.
methodsWe simulated the total expenditures of each testing strategy for running 10,000 tests. Three parameters were used: positive rate (PR), pool size, and test cost. We compared the total testing costs under two hypothetical scenarios in South Korea. We also simulated country-specific circumstances in India, South Africa, South Korea, the UK, and the USA.
resultsAt extreme PRs of 0.01% and 10%, simple pooling was the most economic option and resulted in cost reductions of 98.0% (pool size ≥80) and 36.7% (pool size = 3), respectively. At moderate PRs of 0.1%, 1%, 2%, and 5%, the matrix pooling strategy was the most economic option and resulted in cost reductions of 97.0% (pool size ≥88), 86.1% (pool size = 22), 77.9% (pool size = 14), and 59.2% (pool size = 7), respectively. In both hypothetical scenarios of South Korea, simple pooling costs less than matrix pooling. However, the preferable options for achieving cost savings differed depending on each country's cost per test and PRs.
conclusionsBoth pooling strategies resulted in notable cost reductions compared with individual testing in most scenarios pertinent to real-life situations. The appropriate type of testing strategy should be chosen by considering the PR of COVID-19 in the community and the test cost while using an appropriate pooling size such as five specimens.
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.