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.

10.3390/pathogens10010038 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.3390/pathogens10010038 33466537!7824818!33466537     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=33466537&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Pathogens 2021 ; 10 (1): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33466537|t=2021. Limits and Opportunities of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Tests: An Experienced-Based Perspective |pdf=|usr=}}{{33466537}} gab.com Text Limits and Opportunities of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Tests: An Experienced-Based Perspective JO: Pathogens http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33466537 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Due to the steadily rising case numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections worldwide, there is an increasing need for reliable rapid diagnostic devices in addition to existing gold standard PCR methods. Actually, public attention is focused on antigen assays including lateral flow tests (LFTs) as a diagnostic alternative. Therefore, different LFTs were analyzed regarding their performance in a clinical setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A pilot sample panel of 13 bronchoalveolar fluids (BALFs) and 60 throat washing (TW) samples with confirmed PCR results, as well as eight throat washes invalid by PCR, were tested with the BIOCREDIT test (RapiGEN), the Panbio(TM) assay (Abbott), and the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (Roche). CONCLUSION: The analyzed antigen test showed an interassay correlation of 27.4%, with overall specificities ranging from 19.4% to 87.1%, while sensitivities of the respective tests ranged between 33.3% and 88.1%. Because these assays did not entirely meet all high expectations, their benefit has to be carefully evaluated for the respective test strategy and setting. Twit Text FOAVip Limits and Opportunities of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Tests: An Experienced-Based Perspective ????Pathogens http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33466537 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33466537 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33466537}}</ref> Limits and Opportunities of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Tests: An Experienced-Based Perspective #MMPMID33466537 Schildgen V; Demuth S; Lusebrink J; Schildgen O Pathogens 2021[Jan]; 10 (1): ä PMID33466537show ga BACKGROUND: Due to the steadily rising case numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections worldwide, there is an increasing need for reliable rapid diagnostic devices in addition to existing gold standard PCR methods. Actually, public attention is focused on antigen assays including lateral flow tests (LFTs) as a diagnostic alternative. Therefore, different LFTs were analyzed regarding their performance in a clinical setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A pilot sample panel of 13 bronchoalveolar fluids (BALFs) and 60 throat washing (TW) samples with confirmed PCR results, as well as eight throat washes invalid by PCR, were tested with the BIOCREDIT test (RapiGEN), the Panbio(TM) assay (Abbott), and the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (Roche). CONCLUSION: The analyzed antigen test showed an interassay correlation of 27.4%, with overall specificities ranging from 19.4% to 87.1%, while sensitivities of the respective tests ranged between 33.3% and 88.1%. Because these assays did not entirely meet all high expectations, their benefit has to be carefully evaluated for the respective test strategy and setting. äLimits and Opportunities of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Tests: An Experie(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing