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.

10.1093/jalm/jfaa029 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1093/jalm/jfaa029 32674131!7454602!32674131     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+Appl+Lab+Med 2020 ; 5 (5): 897-907 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32674131|t=2020. Repeat Molecular Testing for Respiratory Pathogens: Diagnostic Gain or Diminishing Returns?|pdf=|usr=}}{{32674131}} gab.com Text Repeat Molecular Testing for Respiratory Pathogens: Diagnostic Gain or Diminishing Returns JO: J Appl Lab Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32674131 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Upper respiratory tract infections are common, and the ability to accurately and rapidly diagnose the causative pathogen has important implications for patient management. METHODS: We evaluated the test-ordering practices for 2 commonly utilized nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the detection of respiratory pathogens: the Xpert Flu Assay for influenza A/B (Flu assay) and the Biofire FilmArray respiratory panel assay (RP assay), which detects 20 different targets. Our study examined repeat testing; that is, testing within 7 days from an initial test. RESULTS: Our study found that repeat testing is common for each of the individual assays: 3.0% of all Flu assays and 10.0% of all RP assays were repeat testing. Of repeat testing, 8/293 (2.7%) of repeat Flu assays and 75/1257 (6.0%) of RP assays resulted diagnostic gains, i.e., new detections. However, for the RP assay, these new detections were not always clinically actionable. The most frequently discrepant organisms were rhinovirus/enterovirus (28/102, 27.5%), followed by respiratory syncytial virus (12/102, 11.8%) and coronavirus OC43 (11/102, 10.8%). Furthermore, there were 3,336 instances in which a patient was tested using both a Flu assay and RP assay, of which only 44 (1.3%) had discrepant influenza results. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest opportunities exist to better guide ordering practices for respiratory pathogen testing, including limiting repeat testing, with the goal of optimization of clinical yield, and diagnostic stewardship. Twit Text FOAVip Repeat Molecular Testing for Respiratory Pathogens: Diagnostic Gain or Diminishing Returns ????J Appl Lab Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32674131 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32674131 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32674131}}</ref> Repeat Molecular Testing for Respiratory Pathogens: Diagnostic Gain or Diminishing Returns? #MMPMID32674131 Qavi AJ; McMullen A; Burnham CD; Anderson NW J Appl Lab Med 2020[Sep]; 5 (5): 897-907 PMID32674131show ga BACKGROUND: Upper respiratory tract infections are common, and the ability to accurately and rapidly diagnose the causative pathogen has important implications for patient management. METHODS: We evaluated the test-ordering practices for 2 commonly utilized nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the detection of respiratory pathogens: the Xpert Flu Assay for influenza A/B (Flu assay) and the Biofire FilmArray respiratory panel assay (RP assay), which detects 20 different targets. Our study examined repeat testing; that is, testing within 7 days from an initial test. RESULTS: Our study found that repeat testing is common for each of the individual assays: 3.0% of all Flu assays and 10.0% of all RP assays were repeat testing. Of repeat testing, 8/293 (2.7%) of repeat Flu assays and 75/1257 (6.0%) of RP assays resulted diagnostic gains, i.e., new detections. However, for the RP assay, these new detections were not always clinically actionable. The most frequently discrepant organisms were rhinovirus/enterovirus (28/102, 27.5%), followed by respiratory syncytial virus (12/102, 11.8%) and coronavirus OC43 (11/102, 10.8%). Furthermore, there were 3,336 instances in which a patient was tested using both a Flu assay and RP assay, of which only 44 (1.3%) had discrepant influenza results. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest opportunities exist to better guide ordering practices for respiratory pathogen testing, including limiting repeat testing, with the goal of optimization of clinical yield, and diagnostic stewardship. |*Influenza A virus/genetics/isolation & purification[MESH] |*Influenza B virus/genetics/isolation & purification[MESH] |*Influenza, Human/diagnosis/virology[MESH] |*RNA Virus Infections/diagnosis/virology[MESH] |*Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis/virology[MESH] |Diagnosis, Differential[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods[MESH] |Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/*methods[MESH] |Procedures and Techniques Utilization[MESH]Repeat Molecular Testing for Respiratory Pathogens: Diagnostic Gain or(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing