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.cca.2020.08.033 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.cca.2020.08.033 32858058!7446654!32858058     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Clin+Chim+Acta 2020 ; 510 (ä): 613-616 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32858058|t=2020. Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analyses of COVID-19 clinical samples |pdf=|usr=}}{{32858058}} gab.com Text Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analyses of COVID-19 clinical samples JO: Clin Chim Acta http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32858058 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Qualitative and quantitative detection of nucleic acids of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), plays a significant role in COVID-19 diagnosis, surveillance, prevention, and control. METHODS: A total of 117 samples from 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 61 patients without COVID-19 were collected. Reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) were used for qualitative and quantitative analyses of these samples to evaluate the diagnostic performance and applicability of the two methods. RESULTS: The positive detection rates of RT-qPCR and ddPCR were 93.3% and 100%, respectively. Among the 117 samples, 6 samples were tested single-gene positive by RT-qPCR but positive by ddPCR, and 3 samples were tested negative by RT-qPCR but positive by ddPCR. The viral load of samples with inconsistent results were relatively low (3.1-20.5 copies/test). There were 17 samples (37%) with a viral load below 20 copies/test among the 46 positive samples, and only 9 of them were successfully detected by RT-qPCR. A severe patient was dynamically monitored. All 6 samples from this patient were tested negative by RT-qPCR, but 4 samples were tested positive by ddPCR with a low viral load. CONCLUSION: Qualitative analysis of COVID-19 samples can meet the needs of clinical screening and diagnosis, while quantitative analysis provides more information to the research community. Although both ddPCR and RT-qPCR can provide qualitative and quantitative results, ddPCR showed higher sensitivity and lower limit of detection than RT-qPCR, and it does not rely on the standard curve to quantify viral load. Therefore, ddPCR offers greater advantages than RT-qPCR. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analyses of COVID-19 clinical samples ????Clin Chim Acta http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32858058 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32858058 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32858058}}</ref> Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analyses of COVID-19 clinical samples #MMPMID32858058 Dang Y; Liu N; Tan C; Feng Y; Yuan X; Fan D; Peng Y; Jin R; Guo Y; Lou J Clin Chim Acta 2020[Nov]; 510 (ä): 613-616 PMID32858058show ga BACKGROUND: Qualitative and quantitative detection of nucleic acids of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), plays a significant role in COVID-19 diagnosis, surveillance, prevention, and control. METHODS: A total of 117 samples from 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 61 patients without COVID-19 were collected. Reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) were used for qualitative and quantitative analyses of these samples to evaluate the diagnostic performance and applicability of the two methods. RESULTS: The positive detection rates of RT-qPCR and ddPCR were 93.3% and 100%, respectively. Among the 117 samples, 6 samples were tested single-gene positive by RT-qPCR but positive by ddPCR, and 3 samples were tested negative by RT-qPCR but positive by ddPCR. The viral load of samples with inconsistent results were relatively low (3.1-20.5 copies/test). There were 17 samples (37%) with a viral load below 20 copies/test among the 46 positive samples, and only 9 of them were successfully detected by RT-qPCR. A severe patient was dynamically monitored. All 6 samples from this patient were tested negative by RT-qPCR, but 4 samples were tested positive by ddPCR with a low viral load. CONCLUSION: Qualitative analysis of COVID-19 samples can meet the needs of clinical screening and diagnosis, while quantitative analysis provides more information to the research community. Although both ddPCR and RT-qPCR can provide qualitative and quantitative results, ddPCR showed higher sensitivity and lower limit of detection than RT-qPCR, and it does not rely on the standard curve to quantify viral load. Therefore, ddPCR offers greater advantages than RT-qPCR. |Adult[MESH] |Aged[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |Case-Control Studies[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnosis/genetics[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnosis/genetics[MESH] |Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH]Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analyses of COVID-19 clinic(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing