ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluations of modes of pooling specimens for COVID-19 screened by quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
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
Abstract
Though pooling samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection has effectively met the need for rapid diagnostic and screening tests, many factors can influence the sensitivity of a pooled test. In this study, we conducted a simulation experiment to evaluate modes of pooling specimens and aimed at formulating an optimal pooling strategy. We focussed on the type of swab, their solvent adsorption ability, pool size, pooling volume, and different factors affecting the quality of preserving RNA by different virus solutions. Both quantitative PCR and digital PCR were used to evaluate the sampling performance. In addition, we determined the detection limit by sampling which is simulated from the virus of different titers and evaluated the effect of sample-storage conditions by determining the viral load after storage. We found that flocked swabs were better than fibre swabs. The RNA-preserving ability of the non-inactivating virus solution was slightly better than that of the inactivating virus solution. The optimal pooling strategy was a pool size of 10 samples in a total volume of 9 mL. Storing the collected samples at 4 °C or 25 °C for up to 48 h had little effect on the detection sensitivity. Further, we observed that our optimal pooling strategy performed equally well as the single-tube test did. In clinical applications, we recommend adopting this pooling strategy for low-risk populations to improve screening efficiency and shape future strategies for detecting and managing other respiratory pathogens, thus contributing to preparedness for future public health challenges.
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.