ArticleBMC infectious diseases2023
The experience and reflections of GC labs as an independent clinical laboratory to the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role, challenges, and solutions of laboratories in disaster medicine: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmid the COVID-19 pandemic, extensive testing was undertaken by independent clinical laboratories (ICLs), yet limited research exists on this matter. Drawing from Green Cross Laboratories (GC Labs)' pandemic response experience, this study seeks to offer insights for preparation for the next pandemic.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed the outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (SARS-CoV-2 rRT PCR) tests administered by GC Labs for COVID-19 diagnosis, upon request by different organizations, between February 2020 and April 2022. The distribution of institutions that requested the tests, the type of tests, and the positive rate were analyzed. We investigated resource allocation details.
resultsICLs were responsible for conducting 85.6% of all tests carried out under South Korea's COVID-19 testing policy during the pandemic. The availability of free testing regardless of symptoms led to a significant increase in the use of pooled tests, which accounted for more than 80% of all tests conducted after August 2021. The gender and age distribution of COVID-19 cases nationwide and GC Labs' positive cases were similar. When we analyzed the positive rate by requesting organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite an overall nationwide positivity rate of 35%, high-risk facilities exhibited a positivity rate of less than 5% by maintaining preemptive testing. The most notable increase in resources during the pandemic was seen in human resource input.
conclusionsSouth Korea's ICLs were able to conduct large volumes of testing during the COVID-19 pandemic because of their logistics and computer systems, scalable testing space, and trained testing personnel. They also had the flexibility to bring in additional resources to expand testing capacity because they are specialized testing organizations. Hence, ICLs could execute the pooled test that the government had introduced for extensive general population screening. The preemptive periodic testing of high-risk populations kept the positive rate much lower than in the general population. This study's findings will aid in refining mass testing-based policies for the next pandemic.
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.