ArticleViruses2024
Evaluation of Fecal Sample Pooling for Real-Time RT-PCR Testing SARS-CoV-2 in Animals.
Article in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple Summary Knowledge-Based Disease Prevalence Estimation for Group Testing Data.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Detection and complete genome characterisation of bat coronaviruses from Ghana.Archives of virology · 2026Article
- Combined NGS and proteomics improves viral diagnostics in wildlife: coronaviruses confirmed in hedgehogs.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Fecal Sample Pooling for Real-Time RT-PCR Testing SARS-CoV-2 in Animals.Viruses · 2024Article
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
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, veterinary diagnostic laboratories tested both human and animal samples and needed to ensure that they could accurately perform large numbers of diagnostic tests in a timely manner. Sample pooling, a methodology used effectively for over 80 years as a surveillance tool for screening large numbers of potentially infected individuals, was employed. Given its sensitivity, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is more suitable for employing this strategy, as compared to other less sensitive testing methods. In this study, we evaluated the capability of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in both 5-sample and 10-sample pools of feces using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) as well as determined the level of sensitivity. A blinded method test (BMT) by an independent laboratory was conducted to assess the five-sample fecal pool. To complement detection capability, the stability of the genome within a PBS fecal suspension was measured under various time and temperature conditions across a 28-day period. Our results showed that the limit of detection for 5-sample and 10-sample fecal pools is 12.8 and 6.4 genome copies in a 25 µL PCR, respectively. The 5-sample and 10-sample pooling resulted in a cycle threshold (Ct) value loss of 2.35 and 3.45, as compared to Ct values of known positive individual samples, but consistent detection was still achieved in pools containing positive samples with an original Ct below 36 and 34, respectively. The simulation of clinical five-sample pooling showed that all positive samples could be detected regardless of the number (1-3) of positive samples in each pool. The BMT results demonstrated excellent sensitivity (100 copies/reaction) in five-sample pools for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA even though a fecal matrix effect was observed. Finally, our results show that the SARS-CoV-2 genome remains stable over a wide range of time and temperature variations. Overall, our findings provide solid data to scale up SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity in veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
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.