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.ijid.2021.04.018 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.018 33862213!8056478!33862213     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 235.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Int+J+Infect+Dis 2021 ; 107 (ä): 195-200 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33862213|t=2021. Diagnostic accuracy of LAMP versus PCR over the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection |pdf=|usr=}}{{33862213}} gab.com Text Diagnostic accuracy of LAMP versus PCR over the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection JO: Int J Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33862213 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) has been validated to diagnose several viral infections. However, its diagnostic accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of RT-LAMP compared to reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) over the disease course of COVID-19. METHODS: A total of 124 nasopharyngeal swab samples obtained from 24 COVID-19 patients were tested by RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR. Sensitivities and specificities of RT-LAMP compared with RT-qPCR were analyzed as a function of time from onset. RESULTS: Up to the 9th day after onset, the RT-LAMP had a positivity of 92.8%, and the sensitivity and specificity compared with RT-qPCR was 100%. However, after the 10th day after onset, the positivity of RT-LAMP decreased to less than 25%, and the concordance of positivity between the two methods was below 60%. The limit of detection of RT-LAMP was 6.7 copies/reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Until the 9th day after the onset of symptoms, RT-LAMP had the same diagnostic accuracy as RT-qPCR. These findings suggest that RT-LAMP can be used as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19 as an alternative to RT-qPCR in the acute symptomatic phase of COVID-19. Twit Text FOAVip Diagnostic accuracy of LAMP versus PCR over the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection ????Int J Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33862213 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33862213 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33862213}}</ref> Diagnostic accuracy of LAMP versus PCR over the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection #MMPMID33862213 Inaba M; Higashimoto Y; Toyama Y; Horiguchi T; Hibino M; Iwata M; Imaizumi K; Doi Y Int J Infect Dis 2021[Jun]; 107 (ä): 195-200 PMID33862213show ga OBJECTIVE: Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) has been validated to diagnose several viral infections. However, its diagnostic accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of RT-LAMP compared to reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) over the disease course of COVID-19. METHODS: A total of 124 nasopharyngeal swab samples obtained from 24 COVID-19 patients were tested by RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR. Sensitivities and specificities of RT-LAMP compared with RT-qPCR were analyzed as a function of time from onset. RESULTS: Up to the 9th day after onset, the RT-LAMP had a positivity of 92.8%, and the sensitivity and specificity compared with RT-qPCR was 100%. However, after the 10th day after onset, the positivity of RT-LAMP decreased to less than 25%, and the concordance of positivity between the two methods was below 60%. The limit of detection of RT-LAMP was 6.7 copies/reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Until the 9th day after the onset of symptoms, RT-LAMP had the same diagnostic accuracy as RT-qPCR. These findings suggest that RT-LAMP can be used as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19 as an alternative to RT-qPCR in the acute symptomatic phase of COVID-19. |*COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |*SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Adult[MESH] |COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/*methods[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/*methods[MESH] |Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/*methods[MESH]Diagnostic accuracy of LAMP versus PCR over the course of SARS-CoV-2 i(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing