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/s10096-020-04091-4 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1007/s10096-020-04091-4 33236270!7685776!33236270     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Eur+J+Clin+Microbiol+Infect+Dis 2021 ; 40 (5): 963-968 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33236270|t=2021. Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 |pdf=|usr=}}{{33236270}} gab.com Text Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 JO: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33236270 #FOAvip Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID19), the novel respiratory illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study was to compare different immunoassays. We evaluated three immunochromatographic test (The StrongStep(R)SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit, AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit, and Wondfo(R) SARS-CoV-2 Antibody) and two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CMIA) (Covid-19 VIRCLIA(R) IgM+IgA/IgG monotest and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay) in COVID-19 patients. The assays were performed using serum samples of three group patients, i.e., healthy controls, patients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive, and patients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative clinically diagnosed of COVID-19 infection. The detection percentages of IgG with the StrongStep(R) SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit and AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit were similar in both groups (83.3% and 80.6%, respectively in group 2, p = 0.766) and (42.9% and 50.0%, respectively in group 3, p = 0.706). There were some differences on IgM detection between StrongStep(R) SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit and AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit (11.1% and 30.6%, respectively in group 2, p = 0.042 and 0.0% and 28.6%, respectively in group 3, p = 0.031). The positive rate of IgG in group 2 is higher compared to group 3 with the two immunoassays tested. We observe the same positive rates of IgG with the two CMIA. Our study shows excellent performance of CMIA compared to immunochromatographic test and confirms its potential use in the diagnosis of the new SARS-CoV-2. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 ????Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33236270 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33236270 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33236270}}</ref> Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 #MMPMID33236270 Sacristan MS; Collazos-Blanco A; Cintas MIZ; Garcia AS; de Villavicencio CY; Maestre MM Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2021[May]; 40 (5): 963-968 PMID33236270show ga Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID19), the novel respiratory illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study was to compare different immunoassays. We evaluated three immunochromatographic test (The StrongStep(R)SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit, AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit, and Wondfo(R) SARS-CoV-2 Antibody) and two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CMIA) (Covid-19 VIRCLIA(R) IgM+IgA/IgG monotest and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay) in COVID-19 patients. The assays were performed using serum samples of three group patients, i.e., healthy controls, patients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive, and patients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative clinically diagnosed of COVID-19 infection. The detection percentages of IgG with the StrongStep(R) SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit and AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit were similar in both groups (83.3% and 80.6%, respectively in group 2, p = 0.766) and (42.9% and 50.0%, respectively in group 3, p = 0.706). There were some differences on IgM detection between StrongStep(R) SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit and AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit (11.1% and 30.6%, respectively in group 2, p = 0.042 and 0.0% and 28.6%, respectively in group 3, p = 0.031). The positive rate of IgG in group 2 is higher compared to group 3 with the two immunoassays tested. We observe the same positive rates of IgG with the two CMIA. Our study shows excellent performance of CMIA compared to immunochromatographic test and confirms its potential use in the diagnosis of the new SARS-CoV-2. |Antibodies, Viral/blood[MESH] |COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing[MESH] |COVID-19 Serological Testing/*methods[MESH] |COVID-19/blood/*diagnosis[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Immunoassay/methods[MESH] |Immunoglobulin G/blood[MESH] |Immunoglobulin M/blood[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/immunology/*isolation & purification[MESH]Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing