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.jiac.2021.06.019 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.jiac.2021.06.019 34238663!8226058!34238663     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 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Infect+Chemother 2021 ; 27 (10): 1477-1481 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34238663|t=2021. Evaluation of false positives in the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test |pdf=|usr=}}{{34238663}} gab.com Text Evaluation of false positives in the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test JO: J Infect Chemother http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34238663 #FOAvip INTRODUCTION: Highly sensitive reagents for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed for accurate and rapid diagnosis till date. In this study, we aim to clarify the frequency of false-positive reactions and reveal their details in SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test using an automated laboratory device. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swab samples (n = 4992) and saliva samples (n = 5430) were collected. We measured their SARS-CoV-2 antigen using Lumipulse(R) Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag and performed a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using the Ampdirect 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detection Kit as needed. The results obtained from each detection test were compared accordingly. RESULTS: There were 304 nasopharyngeal samples and 114 saliva samples were positive in the Lumipulse(R) Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag test. All positive nasopharyngeal samples in the antigen test were also positive for NAAT. In contrast, only three (2.6%) of all the positive saliva samples in the antigen test were negative for NAAT. One showed no linearity with a dilute solution in the dilution test. Additionally, the quantitative antigen levels of all the three samples did not decrease after reaction with the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody. CONCLUSIONS: The judgment difference between the quantitative antigen test and NAAT seemed to be caused by non-specific reactions in the antigen test. Although the high positive and negative predictive value of this quantitative antigen test could be confirmed, we should consider the possibility of false-positives caused by non-specific reactions and understand the characteristics of antigen testing. We recommend that repeating centrifugation before measurement, especially in saliva samples, should be performed appropriately. Twit Text FOAVip Evaluation of false positives in the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test ????J Infect Chemother http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34238663 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34238663 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34238663}}</ref> Evaluation of false positives in the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test #MMPMID34238663 Kobayashi R; Murai R; Moriai M; Nirasawa S; Yonezawa H; Kondoh T; Saeki M; Yakuwa Y; Sato Y; Katayama Y; Nakafuri H; Kitayama I; Asanuma K; Fujiya Y; Takahashi S J Infect Chemother 2021[Oct]; 27 (10): 1477-1481 PMID34238663show ga INTRODUCTION: Highly sensitive reagents for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed for accurate and rapid diagnosis till date. In this study, we aim to clarify the frequency of false-positive reactions and reveal their details in SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test using an automated laboratory device. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swab samples (n = 4992) and saliva samples (n = 5430) were collected. We measured their SARS-CoV-2 antigen using Lumipulse(R) Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag and performed a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using the Ampdirect 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detection Kit as needed. The results obtained from each detection test were compared accordingly. RESULTS: There were 304 nasopharyngeal samples and 114 saliva samples were positive in the Lumipulse(R) Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag test. All positive nasopharyngeal samples in the antigen test were also positive for NAAT. In contrast, only three (2.6%) of all the positive saliva samples in the antigen test were negative for NAAT. One showed no linearity with a dilute solution in the dilution test. Additionally, the quantitative antigen levels of all the three samples did not decrease after reaction with the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody. CONCLUSIONS: The judgment difference between the quantitative antigen test and NAAT seemed to be caused by non-specific reactions in the antigen test. Although the high positive and negative predictive value of this quantitative antigen test could be confirmed, we should consider the possibility of false-positives caused by non-specific reactions and understand the characteristics of antigen testing. We recommend that repeating centrifugation before measurement, especially in saliva samples, should be performed appropriately. |*COVID-19[MESH] |*SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |False Positive Reactions[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Nasopharynx[MESH] |Saliva[MESH]Evaluation of false positives in the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen t(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing