ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Performance Evaluation of Nasopharyngeal Swab Pooling to Improve SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity via Closed Real-Time RT‒PCR Assays.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The consistency of GeneXpert and Cobas RT-PCR assays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in pooled versus individual samples remains uncertain. Sample pooling combines multiple patient samples into a single test reaction to increase efficiency. Only one study in Ethiopia has evaluated pooling performance for SARS-CoV-2 detection, but it failed to directly compare these two widely used diagnostic tests. Purpose: This study evaluated the performance of the Cepheid Xpert Patients and Methods: The study used a cross-sectional study design on 50 confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive samples grouped by their Cycle Threshold (CT) values. These samples were pooled with SARS-CoV-2-negative samples and tested using both assays. A total of 200 pooled samples were tested. Results: Of the 200 poled samples tested, 91.0% and 81.0% tested positive with Xpert and Cobas, respectively, with an overall agreement of 89% (κ=0.552). Strong correlation was observed between the CT values of the initial individual samples and the pooled samples for both assays. In pool-4 and pool-6, the Xpert assay detected 94.0% of positives, while Cobas assay detected 82.0%. Overall, 80.5% of pooled samples were positive and 8.5% were negative with both assays (overall concordance of 89.0%), Percent Positive Agreement of 93.6%, and Negative Agreement of 60.7%. Conclusion: Overall, these findings suggest that implementing sample pooling can be particularly beneficial in low-resource settings where testing resources are limited, enabling an increase in overall testing capacity. Xpert assay performed effectively for pooling up to six samples, whereas the Cobas assay showed reduced sensitivity, especially with low viral loads. This implies that pooling of nasopharyngeal samples from asymptomatic individuals may be missed by the Cobas assay, underscoring the importance of considering pool size, viral load and assay choices when implementing pooled SARS-CoV-2 testing.
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.