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.

10.1002/jmv.26773 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1002/jmv.26773 33393672!7986796!33393672     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       J+Med+Virol 2021 ; 93 (4): 2461-2466 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33393672|t=2021. COVID-19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva |pdf=|usr=}}{{33393672}} gab.com Text COVID-19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva JO: J Med Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33393672 #FOAvip An optimal clinical specimen for accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by minimizing the usage of consumables and reduce hazard exposure to healthcare workers is an urgent priority. The diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection between healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP + OP) swabs and patient performed self-collected random saliva was assessed. Paired NP + OP swabs and random saliva were collected and processed within 48 h of specimen collection from two cohort studies which recruited 562 asymptomatic adult candidates. Real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction targeting Open reading frame 1a (ORF1a) and nucleocapsid (N) genes was performed and the results were compared. Overall, 65 of 562 (28.1%) candidates tested positive for COVID-19 based on random saliva, NP + OP swabs, or both testing techniques. The detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 was higher in random saliva compared to NP + OP testing (92.3%; 60/65 vs. 73.8%; 48/65; p < .05). The estimated sensitivity and specificity of random saliva were higher than NP + OP swabs (95.0; 99.9 vs. 72.2; 99.4). The C(t ) values of ORF1a and N genes were significantly lower in random saliva compared to NP + OP swabs specimens. Our findings demonstrate that random saliva is an alternative diagnostic specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Self-collected random oropharyngeal saliva is a valuable specimen that provides accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing of a community. Twit Text FOAVip COVID-19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva ????J Med Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33393672 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33393672 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33393672}}</ref> COVID-19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva #MMPMID33393672 Rao M; Rashid FA; Sabri FSAH; Jamil NN; Seradja V; Abdullah NA; Ahmad H; Aren SL; Ali SAS; Ghazali M; Manaf AA; Talib H; Hashim R; Zain R; Thayan R; Amran F; Aris T; Ahmad N J Med Virol 2021[Apr]; 93 (4): 2461-2466 PMID33393672show ga An optimal clinical specimen for accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by minimizing the usage of consumables and reduce hazard exposure to healthcare workers is an urgent priority. The diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection between healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP + OP) swabs and patient performed self-collected random saliva was assessed. Paired NP + OP swabs and random saliva were collected and processed within 48 h of specimen collection from two cohort studies which recruited 562 asymptomatic adult candidates. Real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction targeting Open reading frame 1a (ORF1a) and nucleocapsid (N) genes was performed and the results were compared. Overall, 65 of 562 (28.1%) candidates tested positive for COVID-19 based on random saliva, NP + OP swabs, or both testing techniques. The detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 was higher in random saliva compared to NP + OP testing (92.3%; 60/65 vs. 73.8%; 48/65; p < .05). The estimated sensitivity and specificity of random saliva were higher than NP + OP swabs (95.0; 99.9 vs. 72.2; 99.4). The C(t ) values of ORF1a and N genes were significantly lower in random saliva compared to NP + OP swabs specimens. Our findings demonstrate that random saliva is an alternative diagnostic specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Self-collected random oropharyngeal saliva is a valuable specimen that provides accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing of a community. |Adult[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing/*methods[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis/virology[MESH] |Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods[MESH] |Cohort Studies[MESH] |Cross-Sectional Studies[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Health Personnel[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Nasopharynx/virology[MESH] |Oropharynx/*virology[MESH] |Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/*isolation & purification[MESH] |Saliva/*virology[MESH]COVID-19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing