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.ajic.2020.07.011 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.011 32659413!7350782!32659413     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Am+J+Infect+Control 2021 ; 49 (1): 21-29 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32659413|t=2021. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 |pdf=|usr=}}{{32659413}} gab.com Text Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 JO: Am J Infect Control http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32659413 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: To collate the evidence on the accuracy parameters of all available diagnostic methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. Searches were conducted in Pubmed and Scopus (April 2020). Studies reporting data on sensitivity or specificity of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 using any human biological sample were included. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis showed that computed tomography has high sensitivity (91.9% [89.8%-93.7%]), but low specificity (25.1% [21.0%-29.5%]). The combination of IgM and IgG antibodies demonstrated promising results for both parameters (84.5% [82.2%-86.6%]; 91.6% [86.0%-95.4%], respectively). For RT-PCR tests, rectal stools/swab, urine, and plasma were less sensitive while sputum (97.2% [90.3%-99.7%]) presented higher sensitivity for detecting the virus. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in sputum samples. However, the combination of different diagnostic tests is highly recommended to achieve adequate sensitivity and specificity. Twit Text FOAVip Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 ????Am J Infect Control http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32659413 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32659413 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32659413}}</ref> Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 #MMPMID32659413 Boger B; Fachi MM; Vilhena RO; Cobre AF; Tonin FS; Pontarolo R Am J Infect Control 2021[Jan]; 49 (1): 21-29 PMID32659413show ga OBJECTIVE: To collate the evidence on the accuracy parameters of all available diagnostic methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. Searches were conducted in Pubmed and Scopus (April 2020). Studies reporting data on sensitivity or specificity of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 using any human biological sample were included. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis showed that computed tomography has high sensitivity (91.9% [89.8%-93.7%]), but low specificity (25.1% [21.0%-29.5%]). The combination of IgM and IgG antibodies demonstrated promising results for both parameters (84.5% [82.2%-86.6%]; 91.6% [86.0%-95.4%], respectively). For RT-PCR tests, rectal stools/swab, urine, and plasma were less sensitive while sputum (97.2% [90.3%-99.7%]) presented higher sensitivity for detecting the virus. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in sputum samples. However, the combination of different diagnostic tests is highly recommended to achieve adequate sensitivity and specificity. |*COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing[MESH] |*COVID-19 Serological Testing[MESH] |Antibodies, Viral/immunology[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis/immunology[MESH] |Coronavirus Envelope Proteins/genetics[MESH] |Coronavirus RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase/genetics[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Immunoglobulin G/immunology[MESH] |Immunoglobulin M/immunology[MESH] |Lung/*diagnostic imaging[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/genetics/immunology[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH]Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tes(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing