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.ajic.2021.03.008 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.03.008 33774101!7987587!33774101     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Am+J+Infect+Control 2021 ; 49 (9): 1165-1176 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33774101|t=2021. Are saliva and deep throat sputum as reliable as common respiratory specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection? A systematic review and meta-analysis |pdf=|usr=}}{{33774101}} gab.com Text Are saliva and deep throat sputum as reliable as common respiratory specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection A systematic review and meta-analysis JO: Am J Infect Control http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33774101 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic raises an urgent need for large-scale control through easier, cheaper, and safer diagnostic specimens, including saliva and sputum. We aimed to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis on the reliability and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva and deep throat sputum (DTS) compared to nasopharyngeal, combined naso/oropharyngeal, and oropharyngeal swabs. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The inclusion criteria were studies that specifically assessed a sample of saliva or DTS with at least one other respiratory specimen in patients with COVID-19 infection, based on RT-PCR tests. The DerSimonian-Laird bivariate random-effects model analysis performed using STATA software with the "metaprop" package. RESULTS: From 1598 studies, we retrieved 33 records, of which 26 studies were included for quantitative analysis. We found an overall sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86-100) for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, 92% (95% CI, 80-99) for double naso/oropharyngeal swabs, 87% (95% CI, 77-95) for nasopharyngeal swabs, 83% (95% CI, 77-89) for saliva, 82% (95% CI, 76-88) for DTS, and 44% (95% CI, 35-52) for oropharyngeal swabs among symptomatic patients, respectively. Regardless of the type of specimens, the viral load and sensitivity in the severe patients were higher than mild and in the symptomatic patients higher than asymptomatic cases. CONCLUSIONS: The present review provides evidence for the diagnostic value of different respiratory specimens and supports saliva and DTS as promising diagnostic tools for first-line screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the methods of sampling, storing, and laboratory assay need to be optimized and validated before introducing as a definitive diagnosis tool. Saliva, DTS, and nasopharyngeal swab showed approximately similar results, and sensitivity was directly related to the disease severity. This review revealed a relationship between viral load, disease severity, and test sensitivity. None of the specimens showed appropriate diagnostic sensitivity for asymptomatic patients. Twit Text FOAVip Are saliva and deep throat sputum as reliable as common respiratory specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection A systematic review and meta-analysis ????Am J Infect Control http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33774101 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33774101 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33774101}}</ref> Are saliva and deep throat sputum as reliable as common respiratory specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection? A systematic review and meta-analysis #MMPMID33774101 Khiabani K; Amirzade-Iranaq MH Am J Infect Control 2021[Sep]; 49 (9): 1165-1176 PMID33774101show ga OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic raises an urgent need for large-scale control through easier, cheaper, and safer diagnostic specimens, including saliva and sputum. We aimed to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis on the reliability and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva and deep throat sputum (DTS) compared to nasopharyngeal, combined naso/oropharyngeal, and oropharyngeal swabs. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The inclusion criteria were studies that specifically assessed a sample of saliva or DTS with at least one other respiratory specimen in patients with COVID-19 infection, based on RT-PCR tests. The DerSimonian-Laird bivariate random-effects model analysis performed using STATA software with the "metaprop" package. RESULTS: From 1598 studies, we retrieved 33 records, of which 26 studies were included for quantitative analysis. We found an overall sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86-100) for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, 92% (95% CI, 80-99) for double naso/oropharyngeal swabs, 87% (95% CI, 77-95) for nasopharyngeal swabs, 83% (95% CI, 77-89) for saliva, 82% (95% CI, 76-88) for DTS, and 44% (95% CI, 35-52) for oropharyngeal swabs among symptomatic patients, respectively. Regardless of the type of specimens, the viral load and sensitivity in the severe patients were higher than mild and in the symptomatic patients higher than asymptomatic cases. CONCLUSIONS: The present review provides evidence for the diagnostic value of different respiratory specimens and supports saliva and DTS as promising diagnostic tools for first-line screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the methods of sampling, storing, and laboratory assay need to be optimized and validated before introducing as a definitive diagnosis tool. Saliva, DTS, and nasopharyngeal swab showed approximately similar results, and sensitivity was directly related to the disease severity. This review revealed a relationship between viral load, disease severity, and test sensitivity. None of the specimens showed appropriate diagnostic sensitivity for asymptomatic patients. |*COVID-19[MESH] |*SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Nasopharynx[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pharynx[MESH] |Reproducibility of Results[MESH] |Saliva[MESH] |Specimen Handling[MESH]Are saliva and deep throat sputum as reliable as common respiratory sp(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing