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.

10.1007/s10096-020-03972-y http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1007/s10096-020-03972-y 32666481!7359435!32666481     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       Eur+J+Clin+Microbiol+Infect+Dis 2021 ; 40 (1): 193-195 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32666481|t=2021. Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling |pdf=|usr=}}{{32666481}} gab.com Text Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling JO: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32666481 #FOAvip PURPOSE: PCR on a nasopharyngeal sample is the reference method for the detection of SARS-nCoV-2. However, combined throat/nasal sampling as a testing method has several advantages. We compared the combined throat/nasal sampling with nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers suspected of COVID-19. METHODS: In 107 healthcare workers with symptoms of COVID-19, combined throat/nasal sampling and nasopharyngeal sampling was performed. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed by RT-PCR targeting. RESULTS: A total of 80 healthcare workers (74.8%) tested negative with both sampling methods, and 25 healthcare workers (23.4%) tested positive with both sampling methods. There were two discrepant results with positive PCR in combined throat/nasal swabs and negative PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs (1.9%). The kappa index for concordance between the 2 sampling methods was high (0.95). The median cycle threshold (Ct) value of PCR on nasopharyngeal samples was significantly lower than the Ct value of PCR on combined throat/nasal samples (19 (IQR 17-20) versus 21 (IQR 18-29) cycles, p value 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combined throat/nasal swabs yield a similar sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 as nasopharyngeal swabs and are a good alternative sampling method, despite a lower Ct value for the nasopharyngeal samples. Twit Text FOAVip Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling ????Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32666481 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32666481 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32666481}}</ref> Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling #MMPMID32666481 Vlek ALM; Wesselius TS; Achterberg R; Thijsen SFT Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2021[Jan]; 40 (1): 193-195 PMID32666481show ga PURPOSE: PCR on a nasopharyngeal sample is the reference method for the detection of SARS-nCoV-2. However, combined throat/nasal sampling as a testing method has several advantages. We compared the combined throat/nasal sampling with nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers suspected of COVID-19. METHODS: In 107 healthcare workers with symptoms of COVID-19, combined throat/nasal sampling and nasopharyngeal sampling was performed. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed by RT-PCR targeting. RESULTS: A total of 80 healthcare workers (74.8%) tested negative with both sampling methods, and 25 healthcare workers (23.4%) tested positive with both sampling methods. There were two discrepant results with positive PCR in combined throat/nasal swabs and negative PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs (1.9%). The kappa index for concordance between the 2 sampling methods was high (0.95). The median cycle threshold (Ct) value of PCR on nasopharyngeal samples was significantly lower than the Ct value of PCR on combined throat/nasal samples (19 (IQR 17-20) versus 21 (IQR 18-29) cycles, p value 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combined throat/nasal swabs yield a similar sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 as nasopharyngeal swabs and are a good alternative sampling method, despite a lower Ct value for the nasopharyngeal samples. |Adult[MESH] |COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/*methods[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis[MESH] |Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Nasopharynx/*virology[MESH] |Nose/*virology[MESH] |Pharynx/*virology[MESH] |RNA, Viral/isolation & purification[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/genetics/*isolation & purification[MESH] |Specimen Handling/*methods[MESH]Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to n(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing