ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Optimal pooling strategies for respiratory virus testing: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pooled testing represents a cost-efficient strategy for large-scale respiratory virus screening. However, determining the optimal pool size (OPS) across varying prevalence rates and diagnostic performance metrics remains a critical challenge in respiratory virus surveillance. We evaluated four hierarchical OPS algorithms, all employing the original solution method (OSM), and proposed a modified solution method (MSM) based on objective function optimization. Through Monte Carlo simulations and logit modeling, we generated COVID-19 infection data representative of community transmission patterns. These data were analyzed using a comparative cost-effectiveness framework to assess OSM and MSM approaches. Our analysis across various prevalence rates (0.1-30.0%), sensitivities (0.8-1.0), and specificities (0.97-1.00) revealed Hanel et al.'s algorithm consistently yielded the largest OPS values under OSM. MSM revealed minimal deviations from OSM in most scenarios, though it effectively corrected Kim et al.'s inflated OPS values at high prevalence (~30%) with low sensitivity/specificity. Three algorithms produced comparable OPS configurations, outperforming OSM. Hanel's and Regen's algorithms emerged as the most cost-effective options, with Hanel's method being optimal for low additional costs in second-stage testing and Regen's for high additional costs. MSM significantly reduced inter-algorithm cost differences compared to OSM. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of OPS determination algorithms in pooled PCR testing for respiratory viruses, demonstrating robust OPS configurations and enhanced cost-effectiveness through MSM implementation. The proposed MSM addresses existing limitations in pooled testing strategies, facilitates efficient resource allocation, and contributes to improved respiratory virus surveillance and pandemic response.
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.