ArticlePloS one2022
A study on the performance and cost-effectiveness of robots in replacing manual nucleic acid collection method: Experience from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led nucleic acid collection and detection became a measure to ensure normal life in China. Considering the huge detection demand, it has emerged that robots replace manual sample collection. However, the cost-effectiveness of nucleic acid collection by robots instead of humans remain unknown.
methodsThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Shenzhen Luohu District People's Hospital, number 2021-LHQRMYY-KYLL-031a. All participants signed the written informed consent of this study. 273 volunteers were recruited on December 1st 2021 from Shenzhen and divided into six groups: one group to be sampled by robots and the others to be sampled manually with varying specifications for swab rotation and insertion time. Questionnaires were distributed to the robot group to ask them sampling feeling. The effectiveness and safety of sampling were evaluated through the sampling efficiency, adverse events and sampling feeling of different groups. The economics of the different methods were judged by comparing the sampling cost for each.
resultsThe sampling efficiency of the robot group was 96.9%, and there was no statistically significant difference between the other five manually sampled groups (p = 0.586). There were no serious adverse events in any of the six groups, but nasal soreness and tearing did occur in all group. Of the volunteers who underwent robotic sampling, 85.94% reported that the experience was either no different or more comfortable than the manual sampling. In economic terms, a single robot used to replace medical staff for sample collection becomes economically advantageous when the working time is ≥ 455 days. If multiple robots are used to replace twice the number of manual collections, it becomes more economical at 137 days and remains so as long as the robot is used.
conclusionsIt appears safe and effective for robots to replace manual sampling method. Implementation of robotic sampling is economical and feasible, and can significantly save costs when working over a long term.
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.