Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1016/j.ijid.2020.02.050 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.02.050 32114193!7129110!32114193     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 269.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Int+J+Infect+Dis 2020 ; 93 (ä): 264-267 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32114193|t=2020. Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection by nucleic acid amplification tests |pdf=|usr=}}{{32114193}} gab.com Text Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection by nucleic acid amplification tests JO: Int J Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32114193 #FOAvip An ongoing outbreak of severe respiratory pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus has recently emerged in China. Here we report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics of 19 suspect cases. We compared the positive ratio of 2019-nCoV nucleic acid amplification test results from different samples including oropharyngeal swab, blood, urine and stool with 3 different fluorescent RT-PCR kits. Nine out of the 19 patients had 2019-nCoV infection detected using oropharyngeal swab samples, and the virus nucleic acid was also detected in eight of these nine patients using stool samples. None of positive results was identified in the blood and urine samples. These three different kits got the same result for each sample and the positive ratio of nucleic acid detection for 2019-nCoV was only 47.4% in the suspect patients. Therefore, it is possible that infected patients have been missed by using nucleic acid detection only. It might be better to make a diagnosis combining the computed tomography scans and nucleic acid detection. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection by nucleic acid amplification tests ????Int J Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32114193 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32114193 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32114193}}</ref> Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection by nucleic acid amplification tests #MMPMID32114193 Xie C; Jiang L; Huang G; Pu H; Gong B; Lin H; Ma S; Chen X; Long B; Si G; Yu H; Jiang L; Yang X; Shi Y; Yang Z Int J Infect Dis 2020[Apr]; 93 (ä): 264-267 PMID32114193show ga An ongoing outbreak of severe respiratory pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus has recently emerged in China. Here we report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics of 19 suspect cases. We compared the positive ratio of 2019-nCoV nucleic acid amplification test results from different samples including oropharyngeal swab, blood, urine and stool with 3 different fluorescent RT-PCR kits. Nine out of the 19 patients had 2019-nCoV infection detected using oropharyngeal swab samples, and the virus nucleic acid was also detected in eight of these nine patients using stool samples. None of positive results was identified in the blood and urine samples. These three different kits got the same result for each sample and the positive ratio of nucleic acid detection for 2019-nCoV was only 47.4% in the suspect patients. Therefore, it is possible that infected patients have been missed by using nucleic acid detection only. It might be better to make a diagnosis combining the computed tomography scans and nucleic acid detection. |*Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/standards[MESH] |Betacoronavirus/*genetics[MESH] |Blood/virology[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |China/epidemiology[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnosis/virology[MESH] |Feces/virology[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pharynx/virology[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnosis/virology[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Urine/virology[MESH]Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection b(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing