Abstract
Background Pooling is a popular strategy for increasing SARS-CoV-2 testing throughput. One popular pooling scheme is Dorfman pooling: test N individuals simultaneously. If the test is positive — retest each individual separately. However, requiring more than one positive test may lead to increased false-negative rates.
Methods We analyze the false-negative rate (i.e., the probability of a negative result for an infected individual) of Dorfman pooling via a new probabilistic model. We demonstrate that different, previously made probabilistic assumptions regarding pooling are unlikely in light of empiric data. Our model is conservative in that it ignores sample dilution effects, which can only worsen pooling performance.
Results We show that one can expect a 60-80% increase in false-negative rates under Dorfman pooling, for reasonable parameter values. Moreover, we show that the false-negative rates under Dorfman pooling increase when the prevalence of infection decreases.
Discussion In most pooling schemes, identifying an infected individual requires positive results in multiple tests and hence substantially increases false-negative rates. Furthermore, this phenomenon is more pronounced when infection prevalence is low — exactly when pooling is most efficient. Thus, pooling presents an inherent trade-off: it is most efficient when it is least accurate. The deterioration of false-negative rates and the aforementioned trade-off are inherent problems of pooling schemes and should be kept in mind by practitioners and policy makers.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Post-Doctoral Scholarship (YD).
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:
Not applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Footnotes
We show, using data from De Salazar et al., how the common assumption regarding pooling are wrong. We change notation to conform with common notation in the field. We add a plot showing the difference between our results and the results obtained using the common assumptions.
Data Availability
Data was extracted from the paper Sample pooling for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR screening by De Salazar et al. cited in our paper.
