Assessment of Specimen Pooling to Conserve SARS CoV-2 Testing Resources
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Objectives
To establish the optimal parameters for group testing of pooled specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Methods
The most efficient pool size was determined to be five specimens using a web-based application. From this analysis, 25 experimental pools were created using 50 µL from one SARS-CoV-2 positive nasopharyngeal specimen mixed with 4 negative patient specimens (50 µL each) for a total volume of 250 µL. Viral RNA was subsequently extracted from each pool and tested using the CDC SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay. Positive pools were consequently split into individual specimens and tested by extraction and PCR. This method was also tested on an unselected group of 60 nasopharyngeal specimens grouped into 12 pools.
Results
All 25 pools were positive with cycle threshold (Ct) values within 0 and 5.03 Ct of the original individual specimens. The analysis of 60 specimens determined that 2 pools were positive followed by identification of 2 individual specimens among the 60 tested. This testing was accomplished while using 22 extractions/PCR tests, a savings of 38 reactions.
Conclusions
When the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or less, group testing will result in the saving of reagents and personnel time with an overall increase in testing capability of at least 69%.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.03.20050195: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.03.20050195: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
