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.jviromet.2021.114144 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114144 33798607!8008779!33798607     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 251.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Virol+Methods 2021 ; 293 (ä): 114144 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33798607|t=2021. Analytical sensitivity comparison of 14 conventional and three rapid RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection |pdf=|usr=}}{{33798607}} gab.com Text Analytical sensitivity comparison of 14 conventional and three rapid RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection JO: J Virol Methods http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33798607 #FOAvip Recent reports have compared the analytical sensitivities of some SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays, but differences in the viral materials used for these evaluations made comprehensive conclusions difficult. We carried out a direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of 14 conventional and three rapid RT-PCR assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The comparison was performed utilizing a certified reference material for SARS-CoV-2 RNA that was serially two-fold diluted in RNA storage solution. Our results show that the analytical sensitivities of the 17 assays varied within an 8-fold range (100-800 copies/mL). Moreover, a trend with some rapid assays yielding slightly higher analytical sensitivities (2- to 4-fold) compared with conventional assays was observed. We conclude that most of the RT-PCR assays can be used for routine COVID-19 diagnosis, but some assays with the poorest analytical sensitivities may lead to false-negative results when used to identify asymptomatic individuals who can carry a low viral load but still be infectious. These findings should be kept in mind when selecting high-sensitivity and rapid assays. Twit Text FOAVip Analytical sensitivity comparison of 14 conventional and three rapid RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection ????J Virol Methods http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33798607 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33798607 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33798607}}</ref> Analytical sensitivity comparison of 14 conventional and three rapid RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection #MMPMID33798607 Wang X; Huang Z; Song J; Xiao Y; Wang H J Virol Methods 2021[Jul]; 293 (ä): 114144 PMID33798607show ga Recent reports have compared the analytical sensitivities of some SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays, but differences in the viral materials used for these evaluations made comprehensive conclusions difficult. We carried out a direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of 14 conventional and three rapid RT-PCR assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The comparison was performed utilizing a certified reference material for SARS-CoV-2 RNA that was serially two-fold diluted in RNA storage solution. Our results show that the analytical sensitivities of the 17 assays varied within an 8-fold range (100-800 copies/mL). Moreover, a trend with some rapid assays yielding slightly higher analytical sensitivities (2- to 4-fold) compared with conventional assays was observed. We conclude that most of the RT-PCR assays can be used for routine COVID-19 diagnosis, but some assays with the poorest analytical sensitivities may lead to false-negative results when used to identify asymptomatic individuals who can carry a low viral load but still be infectious. These findings should be kept in mind when selecting high-sensitivity and rapid assays. |COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/*methods[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/*genetics[MESH]Analytical sensitivity comparison of 14 conventional and three rapid R(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing