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.

10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226 33986939!8098750!33986939     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Oral+Microbiol 2021 ; 13 (1): 1920226 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33986939|t=2021. Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection |pdf=|usr=}}{{33986939}} gab.com Text Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection JO: J Oral Microbiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33986939 #FOAvip Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed these specimens as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we assessed Salivettes(R), as a standardized saliva collection device, and compared SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n = 35) and 17.2% (n = 52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although the agreement exceeded 90.0% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette(R) was more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections. Twit Text FOAVip Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection ????J Oral Microbiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33986939 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33986939 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33986939}}</ref> Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection #MMPMID33986939 Melo Costa M; Benoit N; Dormoi J; Amalvict R; Gomez N; Tissot-Dupont H; Million M; Pradines B; Granjeaud S; Almeras L J Oral Microbiol 2021[Apr]; 13 (1): 1920226 PMID33986939show ga Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed these specimens as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we assessed Salivettes(R), as a standardized saliva collection device, and compared SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n = 35) and 17.2% (n = 52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although the agreement exceeded 90.0% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette(R) was more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections. äSalivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing