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.

10.3389/fmed.2021.621160 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.3389/fmed.2021.621160 33708779!7940378!33708779     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 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       Front+Med+(Lausanne) 2021 ; 8 (ä): 621160 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33708779|t=2021. Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19 |pdf=|usr=}}{{33708779}} gab.com Text Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19 JO: Front Med (Lausanne) http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33708779 #FOAvip Current testing for COVID-19 relies on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. Saliva samples have advantages regarding ease and painlessness of collection, which does not require trained staff and may allow self-sampling. We enrolled 776 persons at various field-testing sites and collected nasopharyngeal and pooled saliva samples. One hundred sixty two had a positive COVID-19 RT-PCR, 61% were mildly symptomatic and 39% asymptomatic. The sensitivity of RT-PCR on saliva samples vs. nasopharygeal swabs varied depending on the patient groups considered or on Ct thresholds. There were 10 (6.2%) patients with a positive saliva sample and a negative nasopharyngeal swab, all of whom had Ct values <25 for three genes. For symptomatic patients for whom the interval between symptoms onset and sampling was <10 days sensitivity was 77% but when excluding persons with isolated N gene positivity (54/162), sensitivity was 90%. In asymptomatic patients, the sensitivity was only 24%. When we looked at patients with Cts <30, sensitivity was 83 or 88.9% when considering two genes. The relatively good performance for patients with low Cts suggests that Saliva testing could be a useful and acceptable tool to identify infectious persons in mass screening contexts, a strategically important task for contact tracing and isolation in the community. Twit Text FOAVip Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19 ????Front Med (Lausanne) http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33708779 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33708779 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33708779}}</ref> Prospective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for Mass Screening for COVID-19 #MMPMID33708779 Nacher M; Mergeay-Fabre M; Blanchet D; Benoit O; Pozl T; Mesphoule P; Sainte-Rose V; Vialette V; Toulet B; Moua A; Saout M; Simon S; Guidarelli M; Galindo M; Biche B; Faurous W; Chaizemartin L; Fahrasmane A; Rochemont D; Vignier N; Vabret A; Demar M Front Med (Lausanne) 2021[]; 8 (ä): 621160 PMID33708779show ga Current testing for COVID-19 relies on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. Saliva samples have advantages regarding ease and painlessness of collection, which does not require trained staff and may allow self-sampling. We enrolled 776 persons at various field-testing sites and collected nasopharyngeal and pooled saliva samples. One hundred sixty two had a positive COVID-19 RT-PCR, 61% were mildly symptomatic and 39% asymptomatic. The sensitivity of RT-PCR on saliva samples vs. nasopharygeal swabs varied depending on the patient groups considered or on Ct thresholds. There were 10 (6.2%) patients with a positive saliva sample and a negative nasopharyngeal swab, all of whom had Ct values <25 for three genes. For symptomatic patients for whom the interval between symptoms onset and sampling was <10 days sensitivity was 77% but when excluding persons with isolated N gene positivity (54/162), sensitivity was 90%. In asymptomatic patients, the sensitivity was only 24%. When we looked at patients with Cts <30, sensitivity was 83 or 88.9% when considering two genes. The relatively good performance for patients with low Cts suggests that Saliva testing could be a useful and acceptable tool to identify infectious persons in mass screening contexts, a strategically important task for contact tracing and isolation in the community. äProspective Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling for (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing