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.

10.3390/pathogens10060658 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.3390/pathogens10060658 34073618!8228578!34073618     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Pathogens 2021 ; 10 (6): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34073618|t=2021. Performance of the LIAISON((R)) SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay vs SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR |pdf=|usr=}}{{34073618}} gab.com Text Performance of the LIAISON((R)) SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay vs SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR JO: Pathogens http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34073618 #FOAvip We aimed to evaluate the LIAISON((R)) SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay (DiaSorin), comparing its performance to real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. 182 (110 PCR-positive and 72 PCR-negative) nasopharyngeal swab samples were taken for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. RT-PCR and antigen assay were performed using the same material. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen assay were calculated for different cut-offs, with RT-PCR serving as the reference method. Stored clinical samples that were positive for other respiratory viruses were tested to evaluate cross-reactivity. One third (33/110, 30%) were falsely classified as negative, while no false positives were found using the 200 TCID(50)/mL cut-off for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen as proposed by the manufacturer. This corresponded to a sensitivity of 70% (60-78%) and a specificity of 100% (94-100%). Lowering the cut-off for positivity of the antigen assay to 22.79 or 57.68 TCID(50)/mL increased the sensitivity of the method, reaching a sensitivity of 92% (85-96%) vs. 79% (70-86%) and a specificity of 81% (69-89%) vs. 99% (91-100%), respectively. The antigen assay reliably detected samples with high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (>/=10(6) copies SARS-CoV-2/mL), while it cannot differentiate between negative and low positive samples. Cross-reactivity toward other respiratory viruses was not detected. Twit Text FOAVip Performance of the LIAISON((R)) SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay vs SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR ????Pathogens http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34073618 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34073618 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34073618}}</ref> Performance of the LIAISON((R)) SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay vs SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR #MMPMID34073618 Fiedler M; Holtkamp C; Dittmer U; Anastasiou OE Pathogens 2021[May]; 10 (6): ä PMID34073618show ga We aimed to evaluate the LIAISON((R)) SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay (DiaSorin), comparing its performance to real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. 182 (110 PCR-positive and 72 PCR-negative) nasopharyngeal swab samples were taken for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. RT-PCR and antigen assay were performed using the same material. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen assay were calculated for different cut-offs, with RT-PCR serving as the reference method. Stored clinical samples that were positive for other respiratory viruses were tested to evaluate cross-reactivity. One third (33/110, 30%) were falsely classified as negative, while no false positives were found using the 200 TCID(50)/mL cut-off for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen as proposed by the manufacturer. This corresponded to a sensitivity of 70% (60-78%) and a specificity of 100% (94-100%). Lowering the cut-off for positivity of the antigen assay to 22.79 or 57.68 TCID(50)/mL increased the sensitivity of the method, reaching a sensitivity of 92% (85-96%) vs. 79% (70-86%) and a specificity of 81% (69-89%) vs. 99% (91-100%), respectively. The antigen assay reliably detected samples with high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (>/=10(6) copies SARS-CoV-2/mL), while it cannot differentiate between negative and low positive samples. Cross-reactivity toward other respiratory viruses was not detected. äPerformance of the LIAISON((R)) SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay vs SARS-CoV-(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing