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.

10.1186/s12879-021-06343-w http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s12879-021-06343-w 34225656!8256642!34225656     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       BMC+Infect+Dis 2021 ; 21 (1): 648 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34225656|t=2021. Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort |pdf=|usr=}}{{34225656}} gab.com Text Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort JO: BMC Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34225656 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: A considerable amount of evidence demonstrates the potential of saliva in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity of saliva versus swabs collected by healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients themselves to assess whether saliva detection can be offered as a cost-effective, risk-free method of SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: This study was conducted in a hospital involving outpatients and hospitalized patients. A total of 3018 outpatients were tested. Of these, 200 qRT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited for further study. In addition, 101 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalized patients with symptoms were also enrolled in the study. From outpatients, HCWs collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), saliva were obtained. From inpatients, HCWs collected swabs, patient-collected swabs, and saliva were obtained. qRT-PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by TAQPATH assay to determine the sensitivity of saliva detection. Sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of detecting SARS-CoV-2 were calculated using MedCalc. RESULTS: Of 3018 outpatients (asymptomatic: 2683, symptomatic: 335) tested by qRT-PCR, 200 were positive (males: 140, females: 60; aged 37.9 +/- 12.8 years; (81 asymptomatic, 119 symptomatic). Of these, saliva was positive in 128 (64%); 39 of 81 asymptomatic (47%),89 of 119 symptomatic patients (74.8%). Sensitivity of detection was 60.9% (55.4-66.3%, CI 95%), with a negative predictive value of 36%(32.9-39.2%, CI 95%).Among 101 hospitalized patients (males:65, females: 36; aged 53.48 +/- 15.6 years), with HCW collected NPS as comparator, sensitivity of saliva was 56.1% (47.5-64.5, CI 95%), specificity 63.5%(50.4-75.3, CI95%) with PPV of 77.2% and NPV of 39.6% and that of self-swab was 52.3%(44-60.5%, CI95%), specificity 56.6% (42.3-70.2%, CI95%) with PPV 77.2% and NPV29.7%. Comparison of positivity with the onset of symptoms revealed highest detection in saliva on day 3 after onset of symptoms. Additionally, only saliva was positive in 13 (12.8%) hospitalized patients. CONCLUSION: Saliva which is easier to collect than nasopharyngeal swab is a viable alternate to detect SARS-COV-2 in symptomatic patients in the early stage of onset of symptoms. Although saliva is currently not recommended for screening asymptomatic patients, optimization of collection and uniform timing of sampling might improve the sensitivity enabling its use as a screening tool at community level. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort ????BMC Infect Dis http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34225656 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34225656 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34225656}}</ref> Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort #MMPMID34225656 Sasikala M; Sadhana Y; Vijayasarathy K; Gupta A; Daram SK; Podduturi NCR; Reddy DN BMC Infect Dis 2021[Jul]; 21 (1): 648 PMID34225656show ga BACKGROUND: A considerable amount of evidence demonstrates the potential of saliva in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity of saliva versus swabs collected by healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients themselves to assess whether saliva detection can be offered as a cost-effective, risk-free method of SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: This study was conducted in a hospital involving outpatients and hospitalized patients. A total of 3018 outpatients were tested. Of these, 200 qRT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited for further study. In addition, 101 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalized patients with symptoms were also enrolled in the study. From outpatients, HCWs collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), saliva were obtained. From inpatients, HCWs collected swabs, patient-collected swabs, and saliva were obtained. qRT-PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by TAQPATH assay to determine the sensitivity of saliva detection. Sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of detecting SARS-CoV-2 were calculated using MedCalc. RESULTS: Of 3018 outpatients (asymptomatic: 2683, symptomatic: 335) tested by qRT-PCR, 200 were positive (males: 140, females: 60; aged 37.9 +/- 12.8 years; (81 asymptomatic, 119 symptomatic). Of these, saliva was positive in 128 (64%); 39 of 81 asymptomatic (47%),89 of 119 symptomatic patients (74.8%). Sensitivity of detection was 60.9% (55.4-66.3%, CI 95%), with a negative predictive value of 36%(32.9-39.2%, CI 95%).Among 101 hospitalized patients (males:65, females: 36; aged 53.48 +/- 15.6 years), with HCW collected NPS as comparator, sensitivity of saliva was 56.1% (47.5-64.5, CI 95%), specificity 63.5%(50.4-75.3, CI95%) with PPV of 77.2% and NPV of 39.6% and that of self-swab was 52.3%(44-60.5%, CI95%), specificity 56.6% (42.3-70.2%, CI95%) with PPV 77.2% and NPV29.7%. Comparison of positivity with the onset of symptoms revealed highest detection in saliva on day 3 after onset of symptoms. Additionally, only saliva was positive in 13 (12.8%) hospitalized patients. CONCLUSION: Saliva which is easier to collect than nasopharyngeal swab is a viable alternate to detect SARS-COV-2 in symptomatic patients in the early stage of onset of symptoms. Although saliva is currently not recommended for screening asymptomatic patients, optimization of collection and uniform timing of sampling might improve the sensitivity enabling its use as a screening tool at community level. |Adult[MESH] |Aged[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing/*methods[MESH] |COVID-19/*diagnosis[MESH] |Cohort Studies[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Health Personnel[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2/*isolation & purification[MESH] |Saliva/*virology[MESH]Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected sw(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing