You are presented with a paragraph from a COVID-19 literature. Classify the topics of this piece of text by choosing from the following categories:

- Epidemic Forecasting: The content relates to predictions about the spread of COVID-19.
- Treatment: The paragraph discusses therapeutic methods or medication for COVID-19.
- Prevention: The content covers measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
- Mechanism: The paragraph explains the biological mechanisms of the virus.
- Case Report: The content is a report of a COVID-19 case.
- Transmission: The paragraph discusses how COVID-19 is transmitted.
- Diagnosis: The content is about diagnosing COVID-19 in individuals.

Your classification should be provided as an element within a JSON array. The array should be formatted with topics enclosed in double quotes and separated by commas, following the JSON format, for example: ["Topic1", "Topic2", ...]. Include all applicable topics within the array. Your output should be a valid JSON array, and no additional text should be included in your response.

Article:

BACKGROUND: Pooling of samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing in low-prevalence settings has been used as an effective strategy to expand testing capacity and mitigate challenges with the shortage of supplies. We evaluated two automated molecular test systems for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pooled specimens. METHODS: Pooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens were tested by Qiagen QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat) or Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert), and the results were compared to that of standard RT-qPCR tests without pooling. RESULTS: In nasopharyngeal specimens, the sensitivity/specificity of the pool testing approach, with 5 and 10 specimens per pool, were 77%/100% (n = 105) and 74.1%/100% (n = 260) by QIAstat, and 97.1%/100% (n = 250) and 100%/99.5% (n = 200) by Xpert, respectively. Pool testing of saliva (10 specimens per pool; n = 150) by Xpert resulted in 87.5% sensitivity and 99.3% specificity compared to individual tests. Pool size of 5 or 10 specimens did not significantly affect the difference of RT-qPCR cycle threshold (CT ) from standard testing. RT-qPCR CT values obtained with pool testing by both QIAstat and Xpert were positively correlated with that of individual testing (Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.85 to 0.99, p < 0.05). However, the CT values from Xpert were significantly stronger (p < 0.01, paired t test) than that of QIAstat in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 positive specimens, with mean differences of -4.3 +/- 2.43 and -4.6 +/- 2 for individual and pooled tests, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that Xpert SARS-CoV-2 can be utilized for pooled sample testing for COVID-19 screening in low-prevalence settings providing significant cost savings and improving throughput without affecting test quality.
["Diagnosis"]