Optimal size of sample pooling for RNA pool testing: an avant-garde for scaling up SARS CoV 2 testing

  1. Khodare Arvind
  2. Padhi Abhishek
  3. Gupta Ekta
  4. Agarwal Reshu
  5. Dubey Shantanu
  6. SK Sarin

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

Timely diagnosis is essential for the containment of the disease and breaks in the chain of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The present situation demands countries to scale up their testing and design innovative strategies to conserve diagnostic kits and reagents. The pooling of samples saves time, manpower, and most importantly diagnostic kits and reagents. In the present study, we tried to define the pool size that could be applied with acceptable confidence for testing.

Material and methods

We used repeatedly tested positive clinical sample elutes having different levels of SARS CoV 2 RNA and negative sample elutes to prepare seven series of 11 pools each, having pool sizes ranging from 2 to 48 samples to estimate the optimal pool size. Each pool had one positive sample elute in different compositions. All the pools were tested by SARS CoV 2 RT-qPCR.

Results

Out of the 77 pools, only 53 (68.8%) were found positive. The sensitivity of pools of 2 to 48 samples was decreased from 100% (95% CL; 98.4-100) to 41.41% (95% CL; 34.9-48.1). The maximum size of the pool with acceptable sensitivity (>95%) was found to be of 6 samples. For the pool size of 6 samples, the sensitivity was 97.8% and the efficiency of pooling was 0.38.

Conclusion

The pooling of samples is a practical way for scaling up testing and ultimately containing the further spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.11.20128793: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.11.20128793v1 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.4103/ijmm.ijmm_20_260