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.jcv.2021.104878 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104878 34134035!8178956!34134035     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=34134035&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 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       J+Clin+Virol 2021 ; 141 (ä): 104878 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34134035|t=2021. Accuracy of COVID-19 rapid antigenic tests compared to RT-PCR in a student population: The StudyCov study |pdf=|usr=}}{{34134035}} gab.com Text Accuracy of COVID-19 rapid antigenic tests compared to RT-PCR in a student population: The StudyCov study JO: J Clin Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34134035 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of data evaluating performance of antigenic test (AT) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (Ag-RDT) in clinical practice, especially in asymptomatic subjects. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AT compared to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. METHODS: StudyCov is a monocentric cross-sectional study. A SARS-CoV-2 screening facility was set up in the Bordeaux University health campus from October 28th to November 20th 2020. Students willing to have a RT-PCR test (ARGENE SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE, BioMerieux, France) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were also offered the Abbott Panbio SARS-CoV-2 antigenic rapid test. All participants attending the screening facility with an AT in addition to RT-PCR and having signed an informed consent were included in the study. The main objective was to assess performance of AT as compared with RT-PCR in the recruited population. Secondary objectives dealt with the analysis of the main objective stratified by current symptoms and risk exposure. A sensitivity analysis with different RT-PCR cycle thresholds was included. RESULTS: RT-PCR and AT results were available for 692 subjects. Overall sensitivity and specificity of AT tests were respectively 63.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 49.0 - 76.4) and 100% (95% CI: 99.4 - 100). In the asymptomatic sub-group, they were respectively 35.0% (95% CI: 15.4% - 59.2%) and 100% (95% CI: 99.3 - 100). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the poor sensitivity of AT in asymptomatic subjects, specificity being however excellent. The performance results fall below the World Health Organization recommendation of 80% sensitivity and question using AT in general population, especially when asymptomatic. Twit Text FOAVip Accuracy of COVID-19 rapid antigenic tests compared to RT-PCR in a student population: The StudyCov study ????J Clin Virol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34134035 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34134035 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34134035}}</ref> Accuracy of COVID-19 rapid antigenic tests compared to RT-PCR in a student population: The StudyCov study #MMPMID34134035 Ferte T; Ramel V; Cazanave C; Lafon ME; Bebear C; Malvy D; Georges-Walryck A; Dehail P J Clin Virol 2021[Aug]; 141 (ä): 104878 PMID34134035show ga OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of data evaluating performance of antigenic test (AT) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (Ag-RDT) in clinical practice, especially in asymptomatic subjects. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AT compared to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. METHODS: StudyCov is a monocentric cross-sectional study. A SARS-CoV-2 screening facility was set up in the Bordeaux University health campus from October 28th to November 20th 2020. Students willing to have a RT-PCR test (ARGENE SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE, BioMerieux, France) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were also offered the Abbott Panbio SARS-CoV-2 antigenic rapid test. All participants attending the screening facility with an AT in addition to RT-PCR and having signed an informed consent were included in the study. The main objective was to assess performance of AT as compared with RT-PCR in the recruited population. Secondary objectives dealt with the analysis of the main objective stratified by current symptoms and risk exposure. A sensitivity analysis with different RT-PCR cycle thresholds was included. RESULTS: RT-PCR and AT results were available for 692 subjects. Overall sensitivity and specificity of AT tests were respectively 63.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 49.0 - 76.4) and 100% (95% CI: 99.4 - 100). In the asymptomatic sub-group, they were respectively 35.0% (95% CI: 15.4% - 59.2%) and 100% (95% CI: 99.3 - 100). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the poor sensitivity of AT in asymptomatic subjects, specificity being however excellent. The performance results fall below the World Health Organization recommendation of 80% sensitivity and question using AT in general population, especially when asymptomatic. |*COVID-19[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |Cross-Sectional Studies[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH]Accuracy of COVID-19 rapid antigenic tests compared to RT-PCR in a stu(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing