Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37408040›Full record

ArticleVirology journal2023

Flexible upscaling of laboratory PCR testing capacity at the Robert Koch Institute during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Eva Krause, Janine Michel, Andreas Puyskens, Natalie Hofmann, Thomas Rinner, Barbara Biere, Brigitte G Dorner, Martin Skiba, Lars Schaade, Andreas Nitsche

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Virology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eva KrauseCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Highly Pathogenic Viruses (ZBS 1), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, WHO Reference Laboratory for SARS-CoV-2, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany. krausee@rki.de.
Janine MichelCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Highly Pathogenic Viruses (ZBS 1), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, WHO Reference Laboratory for SARS-CoV-2, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas PuyskensCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Highly Pathogenic Viruses (ZBS 1), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, WHO Reference Laboratory for SARS-CoV-2, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Natalie HofmannCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Highly Pathogenic Viruses (ZBS 1), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, WHO Reference Laboratory for SARS-CoV-2, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas RinnerCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Highly Pathogenic Viruses (ZBS 1), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, WHO Reference Laboratory for SARS-CoV-2, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Barbara BiereDepartment for Infectious Diseases, Unit Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses (FG 17), Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Brigitte G DornerCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Biological Toxins (ZBS 3), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Martin SkibaCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Biological Toxins (ZBS 3), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Lars SchaadeCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Highly Pathogenic Viruses (ZBS 1), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, WHO Reference Laboratory for SARS-CoV-2, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas NitscheCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Unit Highly Pathogenic Viruses (ZBS 1), WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infections and Biological Threats, WHO Reference Laboratory for SARS-CoV-2, Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Robert Koch Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, laboratories worldwide have been facing an unprecedented increase in demand for PCR testing because of the high importance of diagnostics for prevention and control of virus spread. Moreover, testing demand has been varying considerably over time, depending on the epidemiological situation, rendering efficient resource allocation difficult. Here, we present a scalable workflow which we implemented in our laboratory to increase PCR testing capacity while maintaining high flexibility regarding the number of samples to be processed.

methodsWe compared the performance of five automated extraction instruments, using dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 cell culture supernatant as well as clinical samples. To increase PCR throughput, we combined the two duplex PCR reactions of our previously published SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay into one quadruplex reaction and compared their limit of detection as well as their performance on the detection of low viral loads in clinical samples. Furthermore, we developed a sample pooling protocol with either two or four samples per pool, combined with a specifically adapted SARS-CoV-2 quadruplex PCR assay, and compared the diagnostic sensitivity of pooled testing and individual testing.

resultsAll tested automated extraction instruments yielded comparable results regarding the subsequent sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection by PCR. While the limit of detection of the quadruplex SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay (E-Gene assay: 28.7 genome equivalents (ge)/reaction, orf1ab assay: 32.0 ge/reaction) was slightly higher than that of our previously published duplex PCR assays (E-Gene assay: 9.8 ge/reaction, orf1ab assay: 6.6 ge/reaction), the rate of correctly identified positive patient samples was comparable for both assays. Sample pooling with optimized downstream quadruplex PCR showed no loss in diagnostic sensitivity compared to individual testing.

conclusionSpecific adaptation of PCR assays can help overcome the potential loss of sensitivity due to higher levels of PCR multiplexing or sample dilution in pooled testing. Combining these adapted PCR assays with different sample processing strategies provides a simple and highly adjustable workflow for resource-efficient SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. The presented principles can easily be adopted in a variety of laboratory settings as well as be adapted to pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, making it feasible for any laboratory that conducts PCR diagnostics.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID37408040
PMCPMC10321005
OpenAlexW4383225873

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.