ABSTRACT
Objective To compare and analyse the detection performance of different 2019-new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) nucleic acid detection kits, in order to provide references for laboratory. Methods Six kinds of domestic reagents (A—F reagent) were selected for parallel detection of a series of samples from one patient in this hospital whose 2019-nCoV nucleic acid result was confirmed weakly positive. The samples were taken at three different times, the RNAs were extracted and amplified, and two parallel tests were performed each time by use of these six kits. The detection performance was compared according to the results of each kit. Results The three parallel test results (ORF1ab and N gene) of C and F reagents were positive, the results of D reagent showed the N gene was not detected, and the results of A, B, E reagents showed the ORF1ab gene was not detected sometimes. The reproducibility of in-batch detections by C reagent was the best, and the CT values of F reagents (N and ORF1ab), E reagents (ORF1ab) and A reagents (ORF1ab) showed changes in trend. Conclusion There are differences in the detection ability of six 2019-nCoV nucleic acid detection reagents for weakly positive samples, and the accuracy, sensitivity and reproducibility of some reagents are not good. There is an urgent need to further optimize and improve their performance in order to better meet the needs of large-scale screening.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare and assess the performance of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools for screening osteoporosis in Malaysian postmenopausal women. METHODS: Six osteoporosis risk assessments tools (the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation [SCORE], the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, the Age Bulk One or Never Estrogen, the body weight, the Malaysian Osteoporosis Screening Tool, and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians) were used to screen postmenopausal women who had not been previously diagnosed with osteoporosis/osteopenia. These women also underwent a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan to confirm the absence or presence of osteoporosis. RESULTS: A total of 164/224 participants were recruited (response rate, 73.2%), of which only 150/164 (91.5%) completed their DXA scan. Sixteen participants (10.7%) were found to have osteoporosis, whilst 65/150 (43.3%) were found to have osteopenia. Using precision-recall curves, the recall of the tools ranged from 0.50 to 1.00, whilst precision ranged from 0.04 to 0.14. The area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.027 to 0.161. The SCORE had the best balance between recall (1.00), precision (0.04–0.12), and AUC (0.072–0.161). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the SCORE had the best balance between recall, precision, and AUC among the 6 screening tools that were compared among Malaysian postmenopausal women.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Absorptiometry, Photon , Area Under Curve , Body Weight , Bone Diseases, Metabolic , Estrogens , Malaysia , Mass Screening , Osteoporosis , Risk Assessment , Self-AssessmentABSTRACT
Objective: To analyze and research detection data of radioactivity performance of digital radiography (DR) equipment so as to provide reference for purchasing DR equipment in hospital. Methods: Through collected the analysis results of detection data of quality control of 153 DR equipment of third level 1st class hospital, third level 2nd class hospital and county level hospital of Yunnan province. The comparison analysis about these DR equipments depended on the hospital type, nationality of equipment and duration of service. Results: There were 50 DR equipment and 103 DR equipments in the third level 1st class hospital and the third level 2nd class hospital, respectively. And in the third level 1st class hospital, there was 79.17% of DR equipments was imported equipment, while it was 51.45% in the third level 2nd class hospital. Besides, the duration of service of the most of DR equipments was 0-4yeras in the third level 2nd class hospital, while it was 5-7 years in the third level 1st class hospital. Conclusion: Most of the DR equipments in the third level 1st hospitals are imported equipment, and their duration of service were longer. On the other hand, in the comparison between imported equipment and domestic equipment, there are a certainly gap in quality stability, reliability and other aspects.