ArticleHeliyon2025
Reagent efficiency and analytical sensitivity optimization for a reliable SARS-CoV-2 pool-based testing strategy.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic caused millions of infections worldwide. Among the strategies for effective containment, frequent and massive testing was fundamental. Although sample pooling allows multiplying the installed analysis capacity, the definition of the number of samples to include in a pool is commonly guided more by economic parameters than analytical quality. Methods: We developed a mathematical model to determine the pooling conditions that maximize reagent efficiency and analytical sensitivity. We evaluated 30 samples individually and in 2-sample to 12-sample pools. Using Passing Bablok regressions, we estimated the shift of Ct values in the RT-qPCR reaction for each pool size. With this Ct shift, we estimated sensitivity in the context of the distribution of 1,030 individually evaluated positive samples. Findings: Our results showed that the most significant gain in efficiency occurred in the 4-sample pool, while at pools greater than 8-sample, there was no considerable reagent savings. Sensitivity significantly dropped to 87.18 %-92.52 % for a 4-sample pool and reached as low as 77.09 %-80.87 % in a 12-sample pooling. Conclusions: Our results suggest that a 4-sample pooling maximizes reagent efficiency and analytical sensitivity. These considerations are essential to increase testing capacity and efficiently detect and contain contagious.
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.