ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Exploring
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study evaluates the feasibility of a sample pooling strategy for Methods: From January to May 2024, 8,142 urine samples were collected from participants in pre-marital and pre-pregnancy health checks in Nanshan District. Positive urine samples with different Ct value ranges were selected, and negative urine samples were used as diluents to simulate mixed samples. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, and other metrics between the pooling tests and individual tests. A paired t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the mean ΔCt values. Results: The 6-sample pool (1 positive:5 negative) demonstrated high sensitivity (96.7%; 95% CI: 94.1-99.3%) with a mean Ct value of 35.6 (range: 33.6-37.4). The specificity was 100% (3/3), PPV was 100% (175/175), and NPV was 33.3% (3/9). The total agreement with single testing was 96.7% (178/184; 95% CI: 94.2-99.3%). The mean ΔCt value between single and pooled tests was 2.8 (range: 2-3.2), with a statistically significant difference ( Conclusion: The 6-sample pooling strategy demonstrated acceptable sensitivity (96.7%) and significantly improved screening efficiency, suggesting its potential utility for large-scale pre-marital and pre-pregnancy screening programs in appropriate settings.
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.