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.

10.1515/cclm-2020-1602 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1515/cclm-2020-1602 33554519!ä!33554519 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 269.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 269.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 269.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 269.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 269.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Clin+Chem+Lab+Med 2021 ; 59 (5): 987-994 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33554519|t=2021. Variability of cycle threshold values in an external quality assessment scheme for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome by RT-PCR |pdf=|usr=}}{{33554519}} gab.com Text Variability of cycle threshold values in an external quality assessment scheme for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome by RT-PCR JO: Clin Chem Lab Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33554519 #FOAvip OBJECTIVES: The qualitative results of SARS-CoV-2 specific real-time reverse transcription (RT) PCR are used for initial diagnosis and follow-up of Covid-19 patients and asymptomatic virus carriers. However, clinical decision-making and health management policies often are based additionally on cycle threshold (C(t)) values (i.e., quantitative results) to guide patient care, segregation and discharge management of individuals testing positive. Therefore, an analysis of inter-protocol variability is needed to assess the comparability of the quantitative results. METHODS: C(t) values reported in a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection external quality assessment challenge were analyzed. Three positive and two negative samples were distributed to participating test laboratories. Qualitative results (positive/negative) and quantitative results (C(t) values) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 66 laboratories participated, contributing results from 101 distinct test systems and reporting C(t) values for a total of 92 different protocols. In all three positive samples, the means of the C(t) values for the E-, N-, S-, RdRp-, and ORF1ab-genes varied by less than two cycles. However, 7.7% of reported results deviated by more than +/-4.0 (maximum 18.0) cycles from the respective individual means. These larger deviations appear to be systematic errors. CONCLUSIONS: In an attempt to use PCR diagnostics beyond the identification of infected individuals, laboratories are frequently requested to report C(t) values along with a qualitative result. This study highlights the limitations of interpreting C(t) values from the various SARS-CoV genome detection protocols and suggests that standardization is necessary in the reporting of C(t) values with respect to the target gene. Twit Text FOAVip Variability of cycle threshold values in an external quality assessment scheme for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome by RT-PCR ????Clin Chem Lab Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33554519 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33554519 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33554519}}</ref> Variability of cycle threshold values in an external quality assessment scheme for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome by RT-PCR #MMPMID33554519 Buchta C; Gorzer I; Chiba P; Camp JV; Holzmann H; Puchhammer-Stockl E; Mayerhofer M; Muller MM; Aberle SW Clin Chem Lab Med 2021[Apr]; 59 (5): 987-994 PMID33554519show ga OBJECTIVES: The qualitative results of SARS-CoV-2 specific real-time reverse transcription (RT) PCR are used for initial diagnosis and follow-up of Covid-19 patients and asymptomatic virus carriers. However, clinical decision-making and health management policies often are based additionally on cycle threshold (C(t)) values (i.e., quantitative results) to guide patient care, segregation and discharge management of individuals testing positive. Therefore, an analysis of inter-protocol variability is needed to assess the comparability of the quantitative results. METHODS: C(t) values reported in a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection external quality assessment challenge were analyzed. Three positive and two negative samples were distributed to participating test laboratories. Qualitative results (positive/negative) and quantitative results (C(t) values) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 66 laboratories participated, contributing results from 101 distinct test systems and reporting C(t) values for a total of 92 different protocols. In all three positive samples, the means of the C(t) values for the E-, N-, S-, RdRp-, and ORF1ab-genes varied by less than two cycles. However, 7.7% of reported results deviated by more than +/-4.0 (maximum 18.0) cycles from the respective individual means. These larger deviations appear to be systematic errors. CONCLUSIONS: In an attempt to use PCR diagnostics beyond the identification of infected individuals, laboratories are frequently requested to report C(t) values along with a qualitative result. This study highlights the limitations of interpreting C(t) values from the various SARS-CoV genome detection protocols and suggests that standardization is necessary in the reporting of C(t) values with respect to the target gene. |*Genome, Viral[MESH] |COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/*methods/statistics & numerical data[MESH] |COVID-19/diagnosis[MESH] |DNA, Viral/*analysis[MESH] |False Negative Reactions[MESH] |False Positive Reactions[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/*methods/statistics & numerical data[MESH]Variability of cycle threshold values in an external quality assessmen(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing