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.

10.1002/jmv.26211 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1002/jmv.26211 32568413!7361902!32568413     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Med+Virol 2021 ; 93 (1): 366-374 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32568413|t=2021. Diagnostic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM test for COVID-19: A meta-analysis |pdf=|usr=}}{{32568413}} gab.com Text Diagnostic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM test for COVID-19: A meta-analysis JO: J Med Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32568413 #FOAvip The serological testing of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM is widely used in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. In this study, we searched for diagnostic studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to calculate the pooled diagnostic accuracy measures using bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis. As a result, 22 from a total of 1613 articles, including 2282 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS-CoV-2, were selected for a meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve of the summary receiver operator curve (SROC) were: (a) 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and (b) 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) for IgM. A subgroup analysis among detection methods indicated the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were slightly lower than those using gold immunochromatography assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (P > .05). These results showed that the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, GICA might be used as the preferred method for its accuracy and simplicity. Twit Text FOAVip Diagnostic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM test for COVID-19: A meta-analysis ????J Med Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32568413 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32568413 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32568413}}</ref> Diagnostic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM test for COVID-19: A meta-analysis #MMPMID32568413 Zhang ZL; Hou YL; Li DT; Li FZ J Med Virol 2021[Jan]; 93 (1): 366-374 PMID32568413show ga The serological testing of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM is widely used in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. In this study, we searched for diagnostic studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to calculate the pooled diagnostic accuracy measures using bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis. As a result, 22 from a total of 1613 articles, including 2282 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS-CoV-2, were selected for a meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve of the summary receiver operator curve (SROC) were: (a) 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and (b) 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) for IgM. A subgroup analysis among detection methods indicated the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were slightly lower than those using gold immunochromatography assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (P > .05). These results showed that the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, GICA might be used as the preferred method for its accuracy and simplicity. |Antibodies, Viral/*blood[MESH] |COVID-19 Serological Testing/*methods[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis/immunology[MESH] |Chromatography, Affinity[MESH] |Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Immunoglobulin G/*blood[MESH] |Immunoglobulin M/*blood[MESH] |Luminescent Measurements[MESH] |Reproducibility of Results[MESH]Diagnostic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM test for COVID-19: A m(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing