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.

10.1128/JCM.00783-20 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1128/JCM.00783-20 32332061!7383520!32332061     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Clin+Microbiol 2020 ; 58 (8): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32332061|t=2020. Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 |pdf=|usr=}}{{32332061}} gab.com Text Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 JO: J Clin Microbiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32332061 #FOAvip Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has now spread across the globe. As part of the worldwide response, many molecular diagnostic platforms have been granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Our objective was to evaluate three sample-to-answer molecular diagnostic platforms (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 [Xpert Xpress], Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 [ID NOW], and GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test [ePlex]) to determine analytical sensitivity, clinical performance, and workflow for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs from 108 symptomatic patients. We found that Xpert Xpress had the lowest limit of detection (100% detection at 100 copies/ml), followed by ePlex (100% detection at 1,000 copies/ml), and ID NOW (20,000 copies/ml). Xpert Xpress also had highest positive percent agreement (PPA) compared to our reference standard (98.3%) followed by ePlex (91.4%) and ID NOW (87.7%). All three assays showed 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). In the workflow analysis, ID NOW produced the lowest time to result per specimen ( approximately 17 min) compared to Xpert Xpress ( approximately 46 min) and ePlex ( approximately 1.5 h), but what ID NOW gained in rapid results, it lost in analytical and clinical performance. ePlex had the longest time to results and showed a slight improvement in PPA over ID NOW. Information about the clinical and analytical performance of these assays, as well as workflow, will be critical in making informed and timely decisions on testing platforms. Twit Text FOAVip Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 ????J Clin Microbiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32332061 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32332061 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32332061}}</ref> Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 #MMPMID32332061 Zhen W; Smith E; Manji R; Schron D; Berry GJ J Clin Microbiol 2020[Jul]; 58 (8): ä PMID32332061show ga Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has now spread across the globe. As part of the worldwide response, many molecular diagnostic platforms have been granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Our objective was to evaluate three sample-to-answer molecular diagnostic platforms (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 [Xpert Xpress], Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 [ID NOW], and GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test [ePlex]) to determine analytical sensitivity, clinical performance, and workflow for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs from 108 symptomatic patients. We found that Xpert Xpress had the lowest limit of detection (100% detection at 100 copies/ml), followed by ePlex (100% detection at 1,000 copies/ml), and ID NOW (20,000 copies/ml). Xpert Xpress also had highest positive percent agreement (PPA) compared to our reference standard (98.3%) followed by ePlex (91.4%) and ID NOW (87.7%). All three assays showed 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). In the workflow analysis, ID NOW produced the lowest time to result per specimen ( approximately 17 min) compared to Xpert Xpress ( approximately 46 min) and ePlex ( approximately 1.5 h), but what ID NOW gained in rapid results, it lost in analytical and clinical performance. ePlex had the longest time to results and showed a slight improvement in PPA over ID NOW. Information about the clinical and analytical performance of these assays, as well as workflow, will be critical in making informed and timely decisions on testing platforms. |Adolescent[MESH] |Adult[MESH] |Aged[MESH] |Aged, 80 and over[MESH] |Betacoronavirus/*isolation & purification[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |Child[MESH] |Child, Preschool[MESH] |Clinical Laboratory Techniques/*methods[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnosis/virology[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Infant[MESH] |Infant, Newborn[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Nasopharynx/*virology[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnosis/virology[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH] |Workflow[MESH]Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing