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.

10.1007/s10096-020-04025-0 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1007/s10096-020-04025-0 32885293!7471581!32885293     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Eur+J+Clin+Microbiol+Infect+Dis 2021 ; 40 (2): 269-277 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32885293|t=2021. Evaluation of three commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in upper respiratory tract samples |pdf=|usr=}}{{32885293}} gab.com Text Evaluation of three commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in upper respiratory tract samples JO: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32885293 #FOAvip The increasing COVID-19 widespread has created the necessity to assess the diagnostic accuracy of newly introduced (RT-PCR based) assays for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in respiratory tract samples. We compared the results of the Allplex 2019-nCoV assay with those of the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct assay and the Quanty COVID-19 assay, respectively, all performed on 125 nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples of patients with COVID-19 suspicion. Fifty-four samples were positive, and 71 were negative with the Allplex assay, whereas 47 of 54 samples were also positive with the Simplexa assay. The Quanty assay detected 55 positive samples, including the 54 positive samples with the Allplex assay and 1 sample that was Allplex negative but Simplexa positive. Using a consensus result criterion as the reference standard allowed to resolve the eight samples with discordant results (one Allplex negative and seven Simplexa negative) as truly false negative. Interestingly, a Spearman's negative association was found between the viral RNA loads quantified by the Quanty assay and the C(T) values of RT PCRs performed with either the Allplex assay or the Simplexa assay. However, the strength of this association was higher for the Allplex assay (N gene, rho = - 0.92; RdRP gene, rho = - 0.91) than for the Simplexa assay (ORF1ab gene, rho = - 0.65; S gene, rho = - 0.80). The Allplex 2019-nCoV, the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, and the Quanty COVID-19 assays yielded comparable results. However, the role these assays might play in future clinical practice warrants larger comparison studies. Twit Text FOAVip Evaluation of three commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in upper respiratory tract samples ????Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32885293 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32885293 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32885293}}</ref> Evaluation of three commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in upper respiratory tract samples #MMPMID32885293 Liotti FM; Menchinelli G; Marchetti S; Morandotti GA; Sanguinetti M; Posteraro B; Cattani P Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2021[Feb]; 40 (2): 269-277 PMID32885293show ga The increasing COVID-19 widespread has created the necessity to assess the diagnostic accuracy of newly introduced (RT-PCR based) assays for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in respiratory tract samples. We compared the results of the Allplex 2019-nCoV assay with those of the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct assay and the Quanty COVID-19 assay, respectively, all performed on 125 nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples of patients with COVID-19 suspicion. Fifty-four samples were positive, and 71 were negative with the Allplex assay, whereas 47 of 54 samples were also positive with the Simplexa assay. The Quanty assay detected 55 positive samples, including the 54 positive samples with the Allplex assay and 1 sample that was Allplex negative but Simplexa positive. Using a consensus result criterion as the reference standard allowed to resolve the eight samples with discordant results (one Allplex negative and seven Simplexa negative) as truly false negative. Interestingly, a Spearman's negative association was found between the viral RNA loads quantified by the Quanty assay and the C(T) values of RT PCRs performed with either the Allplex assay or the Simplexa assay. However, the strength of this association was higher for the Allplex assay (N gene, rho = - 0.92; RdRP gene, rho = - 0.91) than for the Simplexa assay (ORF1ab gene, rho = - 0.65; S gene, rho = - 0.80). The Allplex 2019-nCoV, the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, and the Quanty COVID-19 assays yielded comparable results. However, the role these assays might play in future clinical practice warrants larger comparison studies. |COVID-19 Testing/*methods[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Molecular Diagnostic Techniques[MESH] |Nasopharynx/virology[MESH] |RNA, Viral/*analysis[MESH] |Retrospective Studies[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/*genetics[MESH]Evaluation of three commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detecti(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing