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/jfaa125 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1093/jalm/jfaa125 32717056!7454580!32717056     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       J+Appl+Lab+Med 2020 ; 5 (6): 1351-1357 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32717056|t=2020. Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays |pdf=|usr=}}{{32717056}} gab.com Text Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays JO: J Appl Lab Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32717056 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: While molecular techniques remain the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, serological tests have the unique potential to ascertain how much of the population has been exposed to the COVID-19 pathogen. There have been limited published studies to date documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. METHODS: We compared the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG and Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays using 228 samples spanning patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, patients with compatible symptoms but negative PCR, pre-COVID specimens, and potential cross-reactives. RESULTS: Both assays detected antibodies in 18/19 samples collected at least one week after a positive PCR result. Neither method consistently detected antibodies in specimens collected within one week of a positive PCR result (sensitivity < 50%), but antibodies were detected by only Roche in four samples in this time frame. Using 139 pre-COVID and 35 PCR-negative samples, the Roche and DiaSorin assays demonstrated specificities of 100.0% and 98.9%, respectively. Neither assay demonstrated cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses (229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43), respiratory pathogens (adenovirus, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus), or antibodies to other viruses (HIV, EBV, CMV, HBV, HCV, HAV). DISCUSSION: Overall, the qualitative interpretations afforded by the Roche and DiaSorin assays agreed for 97% of samples evaluated. Minor discrepancies in sensitivity and specificity were observed between methods, with the differences in specificity more clinically significant for our low-prevalence population. For the DiaSorin assay, all disagreements with the Roche assay occurred in samples with quantitative signals near the cut-off determining positivity. Twit Text FOAVip Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays ????J Appl Lab Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32717056 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32717056 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32717056}}</ref> Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays #MMPMID32717056 Merrill AE; Jackson JB; Ehlers A; Voss D; Krasowski MD J Appl Lab Med 2020[Nov]; 5 (6): 1351-1357 PMID32717056show ga BACKGROUND: While molecular techniques remain the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, serological tests have the unique potential to ascertain how much of the population has been exposed to the COVID-19 pathogen. There have been limited published studies to date documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. METHODS: We compared the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG and Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays using 228 samples spanning patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, patients with compatible symptoms but negative PCR, pre-COVID specimens, and potential cross-reactives. RESULTS: Both assays detected antibodies in 18/19 samples collected at least one week after a positive PCR result. Neither method consistently detected antibodies in specimens collected within one week of a positive PCR result (sensitivity < 50%), but antibodies were detected by only Roche in four samples in this time frame. Using 139 pre-COVID and 35 PCR-negative samples, the Roche and DiaSorin assays demonstrated specificities of 100.0% and 98.9%, respectively. Neither assay demonstrated cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses (229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43), respiratory pathogens (adenovirus, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus), or antibodies to other viruses (HIV, EBV, CMV, HBV, HCV, HAV). DISCUSSION: Overall, the qualitative interpretations afforded by the Roche and DiaSorin assays agreed for 97% of samples evaluated. Minor discrepancies in sensitivity and specificity were observed between methods, with the differences in specificity more clinically significant for our low-prevalence population. For the DiaSorin assay, all disagreements with the Roche assay occurred in samples with quantitative signals near the cut-off determining positivity. |Antibodies, Viral/blood/immunology/*isolation & purification[MESH] |Betacoronavirus/genetics/immunology/*isolation & purification[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |Clinical Laboratory Techniques/*instrumentation/statistics & numerical data[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/blood/*diagnosis/immunology/virology[MESH] |Cross Reactions[MESH] |False Positive Reactions[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Immunoglobulin G/blood/immunology/isolation & purification[MESH] |Limit of Detection[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/blood/*diagnosis/immunology/virology[MESH] |Polymerase Chain Reaction/statistics & numerical data[MESH] |Predictive Value of Tests[MESH] |RNA, Viral/isolation & purification[MESH] |Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/statistics & numerical data[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Serologic Tests/*instrumentation/statistics & numerical data[MESH]Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing