Abstract
This paper addresses the operational efficiency of different pool-testing strategies in typical scenarios of a PCR laboratory working in mass testing for COVID-19 with different values of prevalence, limitations and conditions of testing, and priorities of optimization.
The research employs a model of the laboratory’s testing process, created after interviewing of PCR laboratories and studying their operations. The limitations and operational characteristics of this model were applied in a simulation of the testing process with different pool-testing strategies managed by a computer program developed in the LOMT project.
The efficiency indicators assessed are the number of assays needed to obtain results of a batch of specimens, the number of specimens identified after the first analysis, and total time to obtain all results.
Depending on prevalence, constraints of testing, and priorities of optimization, different pool-testing strategies provide the best operational efficiency. The binary splitting algorithm provides the maximum reduction of the number of assays: from 1.99x reduction for a high prevalence (10%) to 25x reduction for a low prevalence (0.1%), while other algorithms provide the least amount of time to obtain results or the maximum number of the specimens classified after the first analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
European Open Science Cloud, COVID-19 Fast Track Funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos