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.ebiom.2020.102903 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102903 32718896!7380223!32718896     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       EBioMedicine 2020 ; 59 (ä): 102903 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32718896|t=2020. SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis |pdf=|usr=}}{{32718896}} gab.com Text SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis JO: EBioMedicine http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32718896 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: The accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory sampling is critical for the prevention of further transmission and the timely initiation of treatment for COVID-19. There is a diverse range of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates in reported studies, with uncertainty as to the optimal sampling strategy for COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing respiratory sampling strategies for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The inclusion criteria were studies that assessed at least two respiratory sampling sites (oropharyngeal swab, nasopharyngeal swab, and sputum) in participants with COVID-19. The percentage positive tests were compared between sampling modalities by constructing a Z-test assuming independence and using the standard errors obtained from the random effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: From 1039 total studies, we identified 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with SARS-CoV-2 testing results from a total of 3442 respiratory tract specimens. Compared to nasopharyngeal swab sampling, sputum testing resulted in significantly higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection while oropharyngeal swab testing had lower rates of viral RNA detection. Earlier sampling after symptom onset was associated with improved detection rates, but the differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by sampling method was consistent regardless of the duration of symptoms. INTERPRETATION: The results support sputum sampling as a valuable method of COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring, and highlight the importance of early testing after symptom onset to increase the rates of COVID-19 diagnosis. FUNDING: This study was funded in part by the NIH grants U01AI106701 and by the Harvard University for AIDS Research (NIAID 5P30AI060354). Twit Text FOAVip SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis ????EBioMedicine http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32718896 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32718896 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32718896}}</ref> SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis #MMPMID32718896 Mohammadi A; Esmaeilzadeh E; Li Y; Bosch RJ; Li JZ EBioMedicine 2020[Sep]; 59 (ä): 102903 PMID32718896show ga BACKGROUND: The accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory sampling is critical for the prevention of further transmission and the timely initiation of treatment for COVID-19. There is a diverse range of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates in reported studies, with uncertainty as to the optimal sampling strategy for COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing respiratory sampling strategies for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The inclusion criteria were studies that assessed at least two respiratory sampling sites (oropharyngeal swab, nasopharyngeal swab, and sputum) in participants with COVID-19. The percentage positive tests were compared between sampling modalities by constructing a Z-test assuming independence and using the standard errors obtained from the random effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: From 1039 total studies, we identified 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with SARS-CoV-2 testing results from a total of 3442 respiratory tract specimens. Compared to nasopharyngeal swab sampling, sputum testing resulted in significantly higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection while oropharyngeal swab testing had lower rates of viral RNA detection. Earlier sampling after symptom onset was associated with improved detection rates, but the differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by sampling method was consistent regardless of the duration of symptoms. INTERPRETATION: The results support sputum sampling as a valuable method of COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring, and highlight the importance of early testing after symptom onset to increase the rates of COVID-19 diagnosis. FUNDING: This study was funded in part by the NIH grants U01AI106701 and by the Harvard University for AIDS Research (NIAID 5P30AI060354). |Betacoronavirus/genetics/*isolation & purification[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnosis/virology[MESH] |Databases, Factual[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Nasopharynx/*virology[MESH] |Oropharynx/*virology[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnosis/virology[MESH] |RNA, Viral/metabolism[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH]SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic revi(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing