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.diagmicrobio.2020.115123 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115123 32673978!7334653!32673978     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=32673978&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Diagn+Microbiol+Infect+Dis 2020 ; 98 (2): 115123 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32673978|t=2020. How many are we missing with ID NOW COVID-19 assay using direct nasopharyngeal swabs? Findings from a mid-sized academic hospital clinical microbiology laboratory |pdf=|usr=}}{{32673978}} gab.com Text How many are we missing with ID NOW COVID-19 assay using direct nasopharyngeal swabs Findings from a mid-sized academic hospital clinical microbiology laboratory JO: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32673978 #FOAvip Here, we retrospectively analyzed the comparative results of 182 paired dry nasopharyngeal swabs tested by Abbott ID NOW and nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport medium by real-time RT-PCR methods. While the overall agreement was 96.2%, we found that of 15 samples that were tested positive with RT-PCR methods, 7 were missed by ID NOW, resulting in a false-negative rate of 47%. Twit Text FOAVip How many are we missing with ID NOW COVID-19 assay using direct nasopharyngeal swabs Findings from a mid-sized academic hospital clinical microbiology laboratory ????Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32673978 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32673978 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32673978}}</ref> How many are we missing with ID NOW COVID-19 assay using direct nasopharyngeal swabs? Findings from a mid-sized academic hospital clinical microbiology laboratory #MMPMID32673978 Thwe PM; Ren P Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2020[Oct]; 98 (2): 115123 PMID32673978show ga Here, we retrospectively analyzed the comparative results of 182 paired dry nasopharyngeal swabs tested by Abbott ID NOW and nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport medium by real-time RT-PCR methods. While the overall agreement was 96.2%, we found that of 15 samples that were tested positive with RT-PCR methods, 7 were missed by ID NOW, resulting in a false-negative rate of 47%. |Academic Medical Centers/organization & administration[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |COVID-19 Vaccines[MESH] |Clinical Laboratory Services/organization & administration[MESH] |Clinical Laboratory Techniques/*methods[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnosis/*epidemiology[MESH] |DNA, Viral/analysis[MESH] |Databases, Factual[MESH] |False Negative Reactions[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Nasopharynx/*virology[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnosis/*epidemiology[MESH] |Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/*methods[MESH] |Retrospective Studies[MESH] |Sampling Studies[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH] |Specimen Handling[MESH]How many are we missing with ID NOW COVID-19 assay using direct nasoph(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing