Citat:
Det har jag ju redan svarat på. Du missade det? Du får väl läsa igen:Rättelse: Alla personer i studien hade fått positivt provsvar från något av förekommande test som bygger på PCR-teknik.
Då kvarstår fortfarande frågan: Vad använde man som "golden standard" för att verifiera att de här testen är tillförlitliga, eller överhuvudtaget fungerar alls?
Har du något svar?
Då kvarstår fortfarande frågan: Vad använde man som "golden standard" för att verifiera att de här testen är tillförlitliga, eller överhuvudtaget fungerar alls?
Har du något svar?
Citat:
Nej, man använde inte PCR för att verifiera SARS.CoV-2. Personerna var DÖDA. Personer var testade positiva med PCR när de LEVDE. När de avlidit VERIFIERADE man infektionen med ddPCR och analyserade sedan med qRT-PCR för att hitta de delar av RNAt (sgRNA) som man sedan rapporterat. Det står uttryckligen vilka metoder de använde. Och ändå frågar du. Du har ju inte läst rapporten, ÄNDÅ ställer du dumma frågor.
LÄS rapporten innan du kommenterar.
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1139035/v1_covered.pdf?c=1640020576
Snälla, skriv inte mer i tråden. Tack. Och lägg ned ditt tragiska skitprat om att personerna "inte var SARS-CoV-2 positiva eftersom testet inte är tillförlitligt" Höhö-ism när den är som allra mest tragisk.
LÄS rapporten innan du kommenterar.
Citat:
We performed droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) for sensitive detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 gene targets in all tissue samples collected. To elucidate SARS-CoV-2 cell-type specificity and validate ddPCR findings, we performed in situ hybridization (ISH) broadly across sampled tissues. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was used to further validate cell-type specificity in the brain where controversy remains on the regional distribution and cellular tropism of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In all samples where SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by ddPCR, we performed qRT-PCR to detect subgenomic (sg)RNA, an assay suggestive of recent virus replication15 111 . We confirmed the presence of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in extrapulmonary tissues by virus isolation in cell culture. Lastly, in six individuals, we measured the diversity and anatomic distribution of intra-individual SARS-CoV114 2 variants using high-throughput, single-genome amplification and sequencing (HT-SGS).
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1139035/v1_covered.pdf?c=1640020576
Snälla, skriv inte mer i tråden. Tack. Och lägg ned ditt tragiska skitprat om att personerna "inte var SARS-CoV-2 positiva eftersom testet inte är tillförlitligt" Höhö-ism när den är som allra mest tragisk.
Citat:
ABSTRACT
Quantitative real time PCR (RT-PCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, due to the low viral load specimens and the limitations of RT-PCR, significant numbers of false negative reports are inevitable, which results in failure to timely diagnose, cut off transmission, and assess discharge criteria. To improve this situation, an optimized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection of SARS-CoV-2, which showed that the limit of detection of ddPCR is significantly lower than that of RT-PCR. We further explored the feasibility of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA from 77 patients, and compared with RT-PCR in terms of the diagnostic accuracy based on the results of follow-up survey. 26 patients of COVID-19 with negative RT-PCR reports were reported as positive by ddPCR. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and accuracy were improved from 40% (95% CI: 27–55%), 100% (95% CI: 54–100%), 100%, 16% (95% CI: 13–19%), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48–0.75) and 47% (95% CI: 33–60%) for RT-PCR to 94% (95% CI: 83–99%), 100% (95% CI: 48–100%), 100%, 63% (95% CI: 36–83%), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02–0.18), and 95% (95% CI: 84–99%) for ddPCR, respectively. Moreover, 6/14 (42.9%) convalescents were detected as positive by ddPCR at 5–12 days post discharge. Overall, ddPCR shows superiority for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the false negative reports, which could be a powerful complement to the RT-PCR.
Quantitative real time PCR (RT-PCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, due to the low viral load specimens and the limitations of RT-PCR, significant numbers of false negative reports are inevitable, which results in failure to timely diagnose, cut off transmission, and assess discharge criteria. To improve this situation, an optimized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection of SARS-CoV-2, which showed that the limit of detection of ddPCR is significantly lower than that of RT-PCR. We further explored the feasibility of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA from 77 patients, and compared with RT-PCR in terms of the diagnostic accuracy based on the results of follow-up survey. 26 patients of COVID-19 with negative RT-PCR reports were reported as positive by ddPCR. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and accuracy were improved from 40% (95% CI: 27–55%), 100% (95% CI: 54–100%), 100%, 16% (95% CI: 13–19%), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48–0.75) and 47% (95% CI: 33–60%) for RT-PCR to 94% (95% CI: 83–99%), 100% (95% CI: 48–100%), 100%, 63% (95% CI: 36–83%), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02–0.18), and 95% (95% CI: 84–99%) for ddPCR, respectively. Moreover, 6/14 (42.9%) convalescents were detected as positive by ddPCR at 5–12 days post discharge. Overall, ddPCR shows superiority for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the false negative reports, which could be a powerful complement to the RT-PCR.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7448897/
Som sagt, skriv inte mer i den här tråden är du snäll.
) så fattar säkert även en skelögd hypokondriker som du att du inte behöver hetsa upp dig över C19-förkylningen längre.