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.

10.1007/s00292-021-00920-1 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1007/s00292-021-00920-1 33770236!7994356!33770236     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Pathologe 2021 ; 42 (Suppl 1): 81-88 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33770236|t=2021. Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe Englische Version |pdf=|usr=}}{{33770236}} gab.com Text Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe Englische Version JO: Pathologe http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33770236 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV?2 in the tissues of COVID-19 patients is important in order to improve our understanding of the disease pathophysiology for interpretation of diagnostic histopathological findings in autopsies, biopsies, or surgical specimens and to assess the potential for occupational infectious hazard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this review we identified 136 published studies in PubMed's curated literature database LitCovid on SARS-CoV?2 detection methods in tissues and evaluated them regarding sources of error, specificity, and sensitivity of the methods, taking into account our own experience. RESULTS: Currently, no sufficiently specific histomorphological alterations or diagnostic features for COVID-19 are known. Therefore, three approaches for SARS-CoV?2 detection are used: RNA, proteins/antigens, or morphological detection by electron microscopy. In the preanalytical phase, the dominant source of error is tissue quality, especially the different intervals between sample collection and processing or fixation (and its duration) and specifically the interval between death and sample collection in autopsies. However, this information is found in less than half of the studies (e.g., in only 42% of autopsy studies). Our own experience and first studies prove the significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of RNA-based detection methods compared to antigen or protein detection by immunohistochemistry or immunofluorescence. Detection by electron microscopy is time consuming and difficult to interpret. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods are available for the detection of SARS-CoV?2 in tissue. Currently, RNA detection by RT-PCR is the method of choice. However, extensive validation studies and method harmonization are not available and are absolutely necessary. Twit Text FOAVip Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe Englische Version ????Pathologe http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33770236 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33770236 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33770236}}</ref> Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe Englische Version #MMPMID33770236 von Stillfried S; Boor P Pathologe 2021[Nov]; 42 (Suppl 1): 81-88 PMID33770236show ga BACKGROUND: Analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV?2 in the tissues of COVID-19 patients is important in order to improve our understanding of the disease pathophysiology for interpretation of diagnostic histopathological findings in autopsies, biopsies, or surgical specimens and to assess the potential for occupational infectious hazard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this review we identified 136 published studies in PubMed's curated literature database LitCovid on SARS-CoV?2 detection methods in tissues and evaluated them regarding sources of error, specificity, and sensitivity of the methods, taking into account our own experience. RESULTS: Currently, no sufficiently specific histomorphological alterations or diagnostic features for COVID-19 are known. Therefore, three approaches for SARS-CoV?2 detection are used: RNA, proteins/antigens, or morphological detection by electron microscopy. In the preanalytical phase, the dominant source of error is tissue quality, especially the different intervals between sample collection and processing or fixation (and its duration) and specifically the interval between death and sample collection in autopsies. However, this information is found in less than half of the studies (e.g., in only 42% of autopsy studies). Our own experience and first studies prove the significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of RNA-based detection methods compared to antigen or protein detection by immunohistochemistry or immunofluorescence. Detection by electron microscopy is time consuming and difficult to interpret. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods are available for the detection of SARS-CoV?2 in tissue. Currently, RNA detection by RT-PCR is the method of choice. However, extensive validation studies and method harmonization are not available and are absolutely necessary. |*COVID-19[MESH] |*SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Autopsy[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |RNA, Viral[MESH]Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe Englische Version (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing