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.amjoto.2020.102872 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102872 33418177!7831439!33418177     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Am+J+Otolaryngol 2021 ; 42 (2): 102872 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33418177|t=2021. A comparison of swab types on sample adequacy, suspects comfort and provider preference in COVID-19 |pdf=|usr=}}{{33418177}} gab.com Text A comparison of swab types on sample adequacy, suspects comfort and provider preference in COVID-19 JO: Am J Otolaryngol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33418177 #FOAvip AIM: This study was aimed to compare the virological, suspect reported outcomes and provider preferences during COVID-19 swab taking procedure used for sampling. METHODS: The COVID-19 suspects are subjected to nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs for testing. Two types of swabs (Nylon and Dacron) are used for sample collection. Prospectively each suspect's response is collected and assessed for self-reported comfort level. The provider's experience with each suspect and virological outcomes recorded separately. The sample adequacy was compared based on swab types and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1008 COVID-19 suspects were considered for comparison of various outcomes. Dacron and flocked Nylon swab sticks are used for taking 530 and 478 samples, respectively. Suspects who underwent the procedure using Nylon swabs were six times more likely to have pain/discomfort compared to when Dacron swab was used (Adj RR (95% CI: 6.76 (3.53 to 13, p=0.0001))). The providers perceived six times more resistance with the Nylon swabs compared to Dacron Swabs (Adj RR (95% CI: 5.96 (3.88 to 9.14, p=0.0001))). The pediatric population had a higher rate of blood staining in Dacron swab [Dacron 66 (80.5%); Nylon 51 (54.8%) p=0.0001]. The sample adequacy rate and laboratory positivity rate were not significantly different from each other. CONCLUSIONS: Given the comparable virological outcomes, the difference in suspect and providers comfort should drive swab selection based on characteristics of the suspects. The bulbous Nylon swab caused more pain/discomfort in adults compared to Dacron. Twit Text FOAVip A comparison of swab types on sample adequacy, suspects comfort and provider preference in COVID-19 ????Am J Otolaryngol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33418177 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33418177 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33418177}}</ref> A comparison of swab types on sample adequacy, suspects comfort and provider preference in COVID-19 #MMPMID33418177 Bidkar V; Selvaraj K; Mishra M; Shete V; Sajjanar A Am J Otolaryngol 2021[Mar]; 42 (2): 102872 PMID33418177show ga AIM: This study was aimed to compare the virological, suspect reported outcomes and provider preferences during COVID-19 swab taking procedure used for sampling. METHODS: The COVID-19 suspects are subjected to nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs for testing. Two types of swabs (Nylon and Dacron) are used for sample collection. Prospectively each suspect's response is collected and assessed for self-reported comfort level. The provider's experience with each suspect and virological outcomes recorded separately. The sample adequacy was compared based on swab types and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1008 COVID-19 suspects were considered for comparison of various outcomes. Dacron and flocked Nylon swab sticks are used for taking 530 and 478 samples, respectively. Suspects who underwent the procedure using Nylon swabs were six times more likely to have pain/discomfort compared to when Dacron swab was used (Adj RR (95% CI: 6.76 (3.53 to 13, p=0.0001))). The providers perceived six times more resistance with the Nylon swabs compared to Dacron Swabs (Adj RR (95% CI: 5.96 (3.88 to 9.14, p=0.0001))). The pediatric population had a higher rate of blood staining in Dacron swab [Dacron 66 (80.5%); Nylon 51 (54.8%) p=0.0001]. The sample adequacy rate and laboratory positivity rate were not significantly different from each other. CONCLUSIONS: Given the comparable virological outcomes, the difference in suspect and providers comfort should drive swab selection based on characteristics of the suspects. The bulbous Nylon swab caused more pain/discomfort in adults compared to Dacron. |*Attitude of Health Personnel[MESH] |*COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |*Patient Comfort[MESH] |Adolescent[MESH] |Adult[MESH] |Child[MESH] |Child, Preschool[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Infant[MESH] |Infant, Newborn[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Nasopharynx/*virology[MESH] |Nylons[MESH] |Oropharynx/*virology[MESH] |Polyethylene Terephthalates[MESH] |Prospective Studies[MESH] |Specimen Handling/*instrumentation[MESH]A comparison of swab types on sample adequacy, suspects comfort and pr(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing