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.

10.1002/jmv.27026 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1002/jmv.27026 33851739!8251198!33851739     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=33851739&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Med+Virol 2021 ; 93 (9): 5333-5338 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33851739|t=2021. Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection on various commercial and laboratory-developed assays |pdf=|usr=}}{{33851739}} gab.com Text Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection on various commercial and laboratory-developed assays JO: J Med Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33851739 #FOAvip The accurate laboratory detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a crucial element in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing on combined oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) suffers from several limitations, including the need for qualified personnel, the discomfort caused by invasive nasopharyngeal sample collection, and the possibility of swab and transport media shortage. Testing on saliva would represent an advancement. The aim of this study was to compare the concordance between saliva samples and ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 on various commercial and laboratory-developed tests (LDT). Individuals were recruited from eight institutions in Quebec, Canada, if they had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected on a recently collected ONPS, and accepted to provide another ONPS, paired with saliva. Assays available in the different laboratories (Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Cobas(R) SARS-CoV-2, Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Allplex 2019-nCoV, RIDA(R)GENE SARS-CoV-2, and an LDT preceded by three different extraction methods) were used to determine the concordance between saliva and ONPS results. Overall, 320 tests were run from a total of 125 saliva and ONPS sample pairs. All assays yielded similar sensitivity when saliva was compared to ONPS, with the exception of one LDT (67% vs. 93%). The mean difference in cycle threshold (?C (t) ) was generally (but not significantly) in favor of the ONPS for all nucleic acid amplification tests. The maximum mean ??????C (t) was 2.0, while individual ?C (t) varied importantly from -17.5 to 12.4. Saliva seems to be associated with sensitivity similar to ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by various assays. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection on various commercial and laboratory-developed assays ????J Med Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33851739 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33851739 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33851739}}</ref> Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection on various commercial and laboratory-developed assays #MMPMID33851739 Labbe AC; Benoit P; Gobeille Pare S; Coutlee F; Levesque S; Bestman-Smith J; Dumaresq J; Lavallee C; Houle C; Martin P; Mak A; Gervais P; Langevin S; Jacob-Wagner M; Gagnon S; St-Hilaire M; Lussier N; Yechouron A; Roy D; Roger M; Fafard J J Med Virol 2021[Sep]; 93 (9): 5333-5338 PMID33851739show ga The accurate laboratory detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a crucial element in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing on combined oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) suffers from several limitations, including the need for qualified personnel, the discomfort caused by invasive nasopharyngeal sample collection, and the possibility of swab and transport media shortage. Testing on saliva would represent an advancement. The aim of this study was to compare the concordance between saliva samples and ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 on various commercial and laboratory-developed tests (LDT). Individuals were recruited from eight institutions in Quebec, Canada, if they had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected on a recently collected ONPS, and accepted to provide another ONPS, paired with saliva. Assays available in the different laboratories (Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Cobas(R) SARS-CoV-2, Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Allplex 2019-nCoV, RIDA(R)GENE SARS-CoV-2, and an LDT preceded by three different extraction methods) were used to determine the concordance between saliva and ONPS results. Overall, 320 tests were run from a total of 125 saliva and ONPS sample pairs. All assays yielded similar sensitivity when saliva was compared to ONPS, with the exception of one LDT (67% vs. 93%). The mean difference in cycle threshold (?C (t) ) was generally (but not significantly) in favor of the ONPS for all nucleic acid amplification tests. The maximum mean ??????C (t) was 2.0, while individual ?C (t) varied importantly from -17.5 to 12.4. Saliva seems to be associated with sensitivity similar to ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by various assays. |COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/instrumentation/methods/*standards[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis/epidemiology/virology[MESH] |Diagnostic Tests, Routine/instrumentation/methods/*standards[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Mouth/virology[MESH] |Nasopharynx/virology[MESH] |Quebec/epidemiology[MESH] |RNA, Viral/*genetics[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/*genetics[MESH] |Saliva/virology[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH]Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing