ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparing clinical utility of STANDARD M10 rapid rtRT-PCR assay with pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2 screening.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pre-admission screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was essential during the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. The pooled real-time reverse transcription (rtRT)-PCR test, recommended for optimizing testing capacity, had long turnaround times, limiting its use for same-day hospitalizations. This study evaluated the performance and clinical utility of a rapid rtRT-PCR test as an alternative screening tool for same-day admissions, compared to pooled testing with standard rtRT-PCR. Between July 2022 and January 2023, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected twice from each of 3931 patients. Samples were tested using the STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 rapid rtRT-PCR assay and the pooled Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assay. The SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates were 2.4% (n = 96) for the STANDARD M10 and 2.6% (n = 104) for pooled testing, with an overall agreement of 97.3%. The mean turnaround time for the STANDARD M10 was 2.1 h; with 90% of results reported within 2.9 h, compared to 10.7 and 17.1 h for pooled screening-negative and individual test cases, respectively. The STANDARD M10 assay demonstrated high concordance with pooled testing, offering a simple procedure and rapid reporting, making it suitable for same-day admission screening. Rapid rtRT-PCR was crucial for healthcare system resilience during COVID-19 pandemic and will be essential for future preparedness.
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.