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.ijid.2021.02.052 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.052 33609774!7888994!33609774     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 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       Int+J+Infect+Dis 2021 ; 105 (ä): 144-146 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33609774|t=2021. Comparative evaluation of four SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in hospitalized patients |pdf=|usr=}}{{33609774}} gab.com Text Comparative evaluation of four SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in hospitalized patients JO: Int J Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33609774 #FOAvip OBJECTIVES: Rapid identification of infected subjects is a cornerstone for controlling a pandemic like the current one with the SARS-CoV-2. Easy to handle antigen tests can provide timely results, which is of particular importance in a primary care setting. However, concerns exist regarding their sensitivity, which led us to evaluate four commercially available tests in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed in parallel nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs from 154 consecutive patients admitted to our department with moderate to severe COVID-19, using quantitative RT-PCR (Cobas, Roche) and up to four antigen tests from different distributors. Antigen test results were linked to Ct (cycle threshold) values as markers for patients' infectivity. RESULTS: We found that two out of four antigen tests correctly identified subjects with high viral loads (Ct</=25), and three out of four tests detected more than 80% of subjects with a Ct</=30, which is considered the threshold for infectivity. However, one test investigated had a poor clinical performance. When investigating subjects with Ct values >30, we found that the antigen test was still positive in up to 45% of those cases. CONCLUSION: Most antigen tests had a sufficient sensitivity to identify symptomatic subjects infected with SARS-CoV-2 and with transmissible infection. On the other hand, antigen testing may not be suitable to identify loss of infectivity in COVID-19 subjects during follow-up. Newly introduced antigen tests need to be validated in a clinical or primary care setting to define their clinical usefulness. Twit Text FOAVip Comparative evaluation of four SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in hospitalized patients ????Int J Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33609774 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33609774 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33609774}}</ref> Comparative evaluation of four SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in hospitalized patients #MMPMID33609774 Thommes L; Burkert FR; Ottl KW; Goldin D; Loacker L; Lanser L; Griesmacher A; Theurl I; Weiss G; Bellmann-Weiler R Int J Infect Dis 2021[Apr]; 105 (ä): 144-146 PMID33609774show ga OBJECTIVES: Rapid identification of infected subjects is a cornerstone for controlling a pandemic like the current one with the SARS-CoV-2. Easy to handle antigen tests can provide timely results, which is of particular importance in a primary care setting. However, concerns exist regarding their sensitivity, which led us to evaluate four commercially available tests in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed in parallel nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs from 154 consecutive patients admitted to our department with moderate to severe COVID-19, using quantitative RT-PCR (Cobas, Roche) and up to four antigen tests from different distributors. Antigen test results were linked to Ct (cycle threshold) values as markers for patients' infectivity. RESULTS: We found that two out of four antigen tests correctly identified subjects with high viral loads (Ct30, we found that the antigen test was still positive in up to 45% of those cases. CONCLUSION: Most antigen tests had a sufficient sensitivity to identify symptomatic subjects infected with SARS-CoV-2 and with transmissible infection. On the other hand, antigen testing may not be suitable to identify loss of infectivity in COVID-19 subjects during follow-up. Newly introduced antigen tests need to be validated in a clinical or primary care setting to define their clinical usefulness. |*COVID-19 Serological Testing[MESH] |Adolescent[MESH] |Adult[MESH] |Aged[MESH] |Aged, 80 and over[MESH] |Antigens, Viral/*analysis[MESH] |COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Hospitalization[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Nasopharynx/virology[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/*immunology[MESH]Comparative evaluation of four SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in hospitalize(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing