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.jcv.2020.104569 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104569 32769023!7396207!32769023     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       J+Clin+Virol 2020 ; 130 (ä): 104569 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32769023|t=2020. Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life |pdf=|usr=}}{{32769023}} gab.com Text Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life JO: J Clin Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32769023 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: The emergence of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic required the rapid and large-scale deployment of PCR and serological tests in different formats. OBJECTIVES: Real-life evaluation of these tests is needed. Using 168 samples from patients hospitalized for COVID-19, non-hospitalized patients but infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients participating in screening campaigns, and samples from patients with a history of other seasonal coronavirus infections, we evaluated the clinical performance of 5 serological assays widely used worldwide (WANTAI(R), BIORAD(R), EUROIMMUN(R), ABBOTT(R) and LIAISON(R)). RESULTS: For hospitalized patients, all these assays showed a sensitivity of 100 % from day 9 after the symptoms onset. On the other hand, sensitivity was much lower for patients who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (from 91.6 % for WANTAI(R) to 69 % for LIAISON(R)). These differences do not seem to be due to the antigens chosen by the manufacturers but more to the test formats (IgG detection versus total antibodies). In addition, more than 50 days after a positive PCR for CoV-2-SARS the proportion of positive patients seem to decrease. We did not observe any significant cross-reactions for these techniques with the four other seasonal coronaviruses. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the evaluation and knowledge of the serological tests used is important and should require an optimized strategy adaptation of the analysis laboratories to best meet patient's expectations in the face of this health crisis. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life ????J Clin Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32769023 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32769023 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32769023}}</ref> Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life #MMPMID32769023 Brochot E; Demey B; Handala L; Francois C; Duverlie G; Castelain S J Clin Virol 2020[Sep]; 130 (ä): 104569 PMID32769023show ga BACKGROUND: The emergence of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic required the rapid and large-scale deployment of PCR and serological tests in different formats. OBJECTIVES: Real-life evaluation of these tests is needed. Using 168 samples from patients hospitalized for COVID-19, non-hospitalized patients but infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients participating in screening campaigns, and samples from patients with a history of other seasonal coronavirus infections, we evaluated the clinical performance of 5 serological assays widely used worldwide (WANTAI(R), BIORAD(R), EUROIMMUN(R), ABBOTT(R) and LIAISON(R)). RESULTS: For hospitalized patients, all these assays showed a sensitivity of 100 % from day 9 after the symptoms onset. On the other hand, sensitivity was much lower for patients who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (from 91.6 % for WANTAI(R) to 69 % for LIAISON(R)). These differences do not seem to be due to the antigens chosen by the manufacturers but more to the test formats (IgG detection versus total antibodies). In addition, more than 50 days after a positive PCR for CoV-2-SARS the proportion of positive patients seem to decrease. We did not observe any significant cross-reactions for these techniques with the four other seasonal coronaviruses. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the evaluation and knowledge of the serological tests used is important and should require an optimized strategy adaptation of the analysis laboratories to best meet patient's expectations in the face of this health crisis. |Adolescent[MESH] |Adult[MESH] |Aged[MESH] |Aged, 80 and over[MESH] |Antibodies, Viral/*blood[MESH] |Betacoronavirus[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |Clinical Laboratory Techniques[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnosis/immunology[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Immunoglobulin A/blood[MESH] |Immunoglobulin G/blood[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnosis/immunology[MESH] |Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH] |Serologic Tests/*methods[MESH]Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing