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.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.37.48.26881

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.37.48.26881
suck pdf from google scholar
33552376!7846260!33552376
unlimited free pdf from europmc33552376    free
PDF from PMC    free
html from PMC    free

suck abstract from ncbi


Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
pmid33552376      Pan+Afr+Med+J 2020 ; 37 (Suppl 1): 48
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • Cochrane corner: universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection #MMPMID33552376
  • Ndwandwe D; Mathebula L; Adetokunboh O; Kamadjeu R; Wiysonge CS
  • Pan Afr Med J 2020[]; 37 (Suppl 1): 48 PMID33552376show ga
  • INTRODUCTION: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with non-specific symptoms, although a few becoming critically ill with septic shock and multiple organ failure. There is an unknown proportion of infected individuals who remain asymptomatic and infectious. Universal screening for COVID-19 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease. We highlight a Cochrane rapid review which assessed the effectiveness and accuracy of universal screening for COVID-19 infection. METHODS: the authors of the Cochrane review searched multiple electronic databases to identify studies reporting on the effectiveness of universal screening and reporting on screening test accuracy. Eligible participants for the review included people who had not sought care for potential COVID-19 symptoms. RESULTS: the authors included 22 publications, with none of them conducted in Africa. Two modelling studies reported on the beneficial and negative effects of screening; and 20 studies (cohort and modelling) reported data on the accuracy of screening tests. The included studies had wide variability in the baseline prevalence of COVID-19 infection as well as study settings and methods. All cohort studies compared screening strategies to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the gold standard. The rapid review suggests that there is low certainty of evidence that screening at travel hubs may slow the importation of infected cases. Furthermore, the review highlights the uncertainty and variation in the accuracy of screening. CONCLUSION: given the low accuracy of the tests included in this review, a high proportion of COVID-19 infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others. In addition, some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals.
  • |COVID-19 Testing/*methods[MESH]
  • |COVID-19/*diagnosis/virology[MESH]
  • |Humans[MESH]
  • |Mass Screening/*methods[MESH]
  • |Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction[MESH]


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box