Author
Listed:
- Fan Zhong
- Changyu Ni
- Bingshun Wang
Abstract
Pooled testing represents a cost-efficient strategy for large-scale respiratory virus screening. However, determining the optimal pool size (OPS) across varying prevalence rates and diagnostic performance metrics remains a critical challenge in respiratory virus surveillance. We evaluated four hierarchical OPS algorithms, all employing the original solution method (OSM), and proposed a modified solution method (MSM) based on objective function optimization. Through Monte Carlo simulations and logit modeling, we generated COVID-19 infection data representative of community transmission patterns. These data were analyzed using a comparative cost-effectiveness framework to assess OSM and MSM approaches. Our analysis across various prevalence rates (0.1-30.0%), sensitivities (0.8-1.0), and specificities (0.97-1.00) revealed Hanel et al.‘s algorithm consistently yielded the largest OPS values under OSM. MSM revealed minimal deviations from OSM in most scenarios, though it effectively corrected Kim et al.’s inflated OPS values at high prevalence (~30%) with low sensitivity/specificity. Three algorithms produced comparable OPS configurations, outperforming OSM. Hanel’s and Regen’s algorithms emerged as the most cost-effective options, with Hanel’s method being optimal for low additional costs in second-stage testing and Regen’s for high additional costs. MSM significantly reduced inter-algorithm cost differences compared to OSM. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of OPS determination algorithms in pooled PCR testing for respiratory viruses, demonstrating robust OPS configurations and enhanced cost-effectiveness through MSM implementation. The proposed MSM addresses existing limitations in pooled testing strategies, facilitates efficient resource allocation, and contributes to improved respiratory virus surveillance and pandemic response.
Suggested Citation
Fan Zhong & Changyu Ni & Bingshun Wang, 2026.
"Optimal pooling strategies for respiratory virus testing: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis,"
PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-15, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006646
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006646
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.