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.ijid.2020.12.003 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.003 33310108!7725057!33310108     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Int+J+Infect+Dis 2021 ; 103 (ä): 590-596 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33310108|t=2021. Clinical evaluation of commercial automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays |pdf=|usr=}}{{33310108}} gab.com Text Clinical evaluation of commercial automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays JO: Int J Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33310108 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: Numerous immunoassays for detecting antibodies directed against SARS-CoV-2 have been rapidly developed and released. Validations of these have been performed with a limited number of samples. The lack of standardisation might lead to significantly different results. This study compared ten automated assays from six vendors in terms of sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility. METHODS: This study compared ten fully automated immunoassays from the following vendors: Diasorin, Epitope Diagnostics, Euroimmun, Roche, YHLO, and Snibe. The retrospective part of the study included patients with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection, and controls comprised patients with a suspected infection, in whom the disease was excluded. Furthermore, biobanked sera were taken as negative controls (n = 97). The retrospective part involved four groups: (1) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection (n = 183); (1B) suspected COVID-19 infection (n = 167) without a qRT-PCR result but positive serological results from at least two different assays, and suspected COVID-19 infection due to a positive serological result from the Roche assay (n = 295); (2) biobanked sera obtained from patients before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 97) as negative controls; and (2A) probably COVID-19-negative sera with negative serological results from at least two different assays (n = 152). RESULTS: Overall diagnostic sensitivities were: Euroimmun (IgA) 87%; Epitope Diagnostics (IgG) 83%; YHLO (IgG) 77%; Roche (IgM/IgG) 77%; Euroimmun (IgG) 75%; Diasorin (IgG) 53%; Epitope Diagnostics (IgM) 52%; Snibe (IgG) 47%; YHLO (IgM) 35%; and Snibe (IgM) 26%. Diagnostic specificities were: YHLO (IgG) 100%; Roche, 100%; Snibe (IgM/IgG) 100%; Diasorin (IgG) 97%; Euroimmun (IgG) 94%; YHLO (IgM) 94%; Euroimmun (IgA) 83%. CONCLUSION: Assays from different vendors substantially varied in terms of their performance. These findings might facilitate selection of appropriate serological assays. Twit Text FOAVip Clinical evaluation of commercial automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays ????Int J Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33310108 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33310108 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33310108}}</ref> Clinical evaluation of commercial automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays #MMPMID33310108 Kittel M; Muth MC; Zahn I; Roth HJ; Thiaucourt M; Gerhards C; Haselmann V; Neumaier M; Findeisen P Int J Infect Dis 2021[Feb]; 103 (ä): 590-596 PMID33310108show ga OBJECTIVE: Numerous immunoassays for detecting antibodies directed against SARS-CoV-2 have been rapidly developed and released. Validations of these have been performed with a limited number of samples. The lack of standardisation might lead to significantly different results. This study compared ten automated assays from six vendors in terms of sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility. METHODS: This study compared ten fully automated immunoassays from the following vendors: Diasorin, Epitope Diagnostics, Euroimmun, Roche, YHLO, and Snibe. The retrospective part of the study included patients with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection, and controls comprised patients with a suspected infection, in whom the disease was excluded. Furthermore, biobanked sera were taken as negative controls (n = 97). The retrospective part involved four groups: (1) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection (n = 183); (1B) suspected COVID-19 infection (n = 167) without a qRT-PCR result but positive serological results from at least two different assays, and suspected COVID-19 infection due to a positive serological result from the Roche assay (n = 295); (2) biobanked sera obtained from patients before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 97) as negative controls; and (2A) probably COVID-19-negative sera with negative serological results from at least two different assays (n = 152). RESULTS: Overall diagnostic sensitivities were: Euroimmun (IgA) 87%; Epitope Diagnostics (IgG) 83%; YHLO (IgG) 77%; Roche (IgM/IgG) 77%; Euroimmun (IgG) 75%; Diasorin (IgG) 53%; Epitope Diagnostics (IgM) 52%; Snibe (IgG) 47%; YHLO (IgM) 35%; and Snibe (IgM) 26%. Diagnostic specificities were: YHLO (IgG) 100%; Roche, 100%; Snibe (IgM/IgG) 100%; Diasorin (IgG) 97%; Euroimmun (IgG) 94%; YHLO (IgM) 94%; Euroimmun (IgA) 83%. CONCLUSION: Assays from different vendors substantially varied in terms of their performance. These findings might facilitate selection of appropriate serological assays. |Adult[MESH] |Antibodies, Viral/*blood[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Immunoassay/*methods[MESH] |Immunoglobulin G/blood[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Retrospective Studies[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/*immunology[MESH]Clinical evaluation of commercial automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing