ArticleScientific reports2023
Underscoring the effect of swab type, workflow, and positive sample order on swab pooling for COVID-19 surveillance testing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new in vitro pre-clinical method for testing SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sample pooling is a promising strategy to facilitate COVID-19 surveillance testing for a larger population in comparison to individual single testing due to resource and time constraints. Increased surveillance testing capacity will reduce the likelihood of outbreaks as the general population is returning to work, school, and other gatherings. We have analyzed the impact of three variables on the effectiveness of pooling test samples: swab type, workflow, and positive sample order. We investigated the performance of several commercially available swabs (Steripack polyester flocked, Puritan nylon flocked, Puritan foam) in comparison to a new injected molded design (Yukon). The bench-top performance of collection swab was conducted with a previously developed anterior nasal cavity tissue model, based on a silk-glycerol sponge to mimic soft tissue mechanics and saturated with a physiologically relevant synthetic nasal fluid spiked with heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2. Overall, we demonstrated statistically significant differences in performance across the different swab types. A characterization of individual swab uptake (gravimetric analysis) and FITC microparticle release suggests that differences in absorbance and retention drive the observed differences in Ct of the pooled samples. We also proposed two distinct pooling workflows to encompass different community collection modes and analyzed the difference in resulting positive pools as an effect of workflow, swab type, and positive sample order. Overall, swab types with lower volume retention resulted in reduced false negative occurrence, also observed for collection workflows with limited incubation times. Concurrently, positive sample order did have a significant impact on pooling test outcome, particularly in the case of swab type with great volume retention. We demonstrated that the variables investigated here affect the results of pooled COVID-19 testing, and therefore should be considered while designing pooled surveillance testing.
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.