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.

10.1371/journal.pone.0260184 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pone.0260184 34784386!8594827!34784386     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=34784386&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 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       PLoS+One 2021 ; 16 (11): e0260184 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34784386|t=2021. Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland |pdf=|usr=}}{{34784386}} gab.com Text Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland JO: PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34784386 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis relies on the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs. Alternative sample sites have been assessed but the heterogeneity of the studies have made comparing different sites difficult. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the performance of four different sampling sites for SARS-CoV-2 samples with nasopharynx being the benchmark. STUDY DESIGN: COVID-19 positive patients were recruited prospectively, and samples were collected and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR from all four anatomical sites in 43 patients, who provided written informed consent. RESULTS: All anterior nasal and saliva samples were positive, while two oropharyngeal samples were negative. There was no significant difference in the cycle threshold values of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples while saliva and oropharynx had higher cycle threshold values. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior nasal swab performs as good as nasopharynx swab with saliva also finding all the positives but with higher cycle threshold values. Thus, we can conclude that anterior nasal swabs can be used for SARS-CoV-2 detection instead of nasopharyngeal swabs if the situation would require so. Twit Text FOAVip Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland ????PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34784386 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34784386 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34784386}}</ref> Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland #MMPMID34784386 Kerimov D; Tamminen P; Viskari H; Lehtimaki L; Aittoniemi J PLoS One 2021[]; 16 (11): e0260184 PMID34784386show ga BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis relies on the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs. Alternative sample sites have been assessed but the heterogeneity of the studies have made comparing different sites difficult. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the performance of four different sampling sites for SARS-CoV-2 samples with nasopharynx being the benchmark. STUDY DESIGN: COVID-19 positive patients were recruited prospectively, and samples were collected and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR from all four anatomical sites in 43 patients, who provided written informed consent. RESULTS: All anterior nasal and saliva samples were positive, while two oropharyngeal samples were negative. There was no significant difference in the cycle threshold values of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples while saliva and oropharynx had higher cycle threshold values. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior nasal swab performs as good as nasopharynx swab with saliva also finding all the positives but with higher cycle threshold values. Thus, we can conclude that anterior nasal swabs can be used for SARS-CoV-2 detection instead of nasopharyngeal swabs if the situation would require so. |*COVID-19[MESH] |COVID-19 Testing[MESH] |Finland[MESH] |Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction[MESH]Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparis(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing