ArticleHeliyon2023
Pooling of six respiratory samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A validation and cost study in a cohort in Lima, Peru.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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, 0 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The continuous evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to a high demand for diagnostic testing and major shortages in testing materials, especially in low- and middle-income countries. As an alternative to testing individual samples, pooling of respiratory samples has been suggested. Previous studies have assessed performance of pooling, mainly using nasopharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, but few studies have examined the performance of pooling the more practical nasal swabs or saliva samples. Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and potential cost reduction of pooling of nasal swab (NS) and saliva (SL) samples for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a community-based cohort study in Lima, Peru. Study design: A prospective cohort study was conducted in a community setting in San Juan de Lurigancho, Lima-Peru. NS and SL samples were collected from 132 participants twice-a-week for a 2-month period. Pools of 2 to 12 samples of the same type, from participants of the same household, were tested by RT-PCR. After pooled testing, all individual samples from positive pools and all individual samples from randomly chosen negative pools were evaluated. For assessment of diagnostic performance, pool testing results were compared with results from individual testing, which served as reference, and concordance in pooled and individual test detections was evaluated. Laboratory costs for both types of samples and testing were compared. Results: A total of 2008 NS and 2002 SL samples were collected from 132 study participants. We tested 329 NS and 333 SL pools. The mean pool size for NS and SL pools was 6.22 (SD = 0.92) and 6.39 (SD = 1.71), respectively. Using individual testing as reference, NS pooling of 6 had a sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 100%, respectively, with kappa of 0.97 (CI 95%: 0.93-1.00). The corresponding values for SL pooling of 6 were 83%, 100%, and 0.90 (CI 95%: 0.83-0.97). Compared with individual testing, pooling resulted in a cost reduction of 74.8% for NS and 72.4% for SL samples. Conclusions: Pooling easy-to-collect respiratory samples, especially NS, demonstrated very high diagnostic performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 with substantial cost savings. This approach could be considered in large population screening programs, especially in LMIC.
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.