Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
J Clin Virol ; 159: 105349, 2023 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2231219

RESUMEN

We advise that only clinically validated HPV assays which have fulfilled internationally accepted performance criteria be used for primary cervical screening. Further, assays should be demonstrated to be fit for purpose in the laboratory in which they will ultimately be performed, and quality materials manuals and frameworks will be helpful in this endeavor. Importantly, there is a fundamental shortage of well validated, low-cost, low complexity HPV tests that have demonstrated utility in a near-patient setting; representing a significant challenge and focus for future development in order to reach the WHO's goal of eliminating cervical cancer.


Asunto(s)
Ácidos Nucleicos , Infecciones por Papillomavirus , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/diagnóstico , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/prevención & control , Tamizaje Masivo , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/diagnóstico , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Papillomaviridae/genética , Control de Calidad , Políticas
2.
Wellcome open research ; 5, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1679256

RESUMEN

Background: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing of upper respiratory tract samples from hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. Methods: All RT-PCR testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in NHS Lothian, Scotland, United Kingdom between the 7 th of February and 19 th April 2020 (inclusive) was reviewed, and hospitalised patients were identified. All upper respiratory tract RT-PCR tests were analysed for each patient to determine the sequence of negative and positive results. For those who were tested twice or more but never received a positive result, case records were reviewed, and a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 allocated based on clinical features, discharge diagnosis, and radiology and haematology results. For those who had a negative RT-PCR test but a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, respiratory samples were retested using a multiplex respiratory panel, a second SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay, and a human RNase P control. Results: Compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, the sensitivity of a single upper respiratory tract RT-PCR for COVID-19 was 82.2% (95% confidence interval 79.0-85.1%).   The sensitivity of two upper respiratory tract RT-PCR tests increased sensitivity to 90.6% (CI 88.0-92.7%). A further 2.2% and 0.9% of patients who received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 were positive on a third and fourth test;this may be an underestimate of the value of further testing as the majority of patients 93.0% (2999/3226) only had one or two RT-PCR tests. Conclusions: The sensitivity of a single RT-PCR test of upper respiratory tract samples in hospitalised patients is 82.2%. Sensitivity increases to 90.6% when patients are tested twice.  A proportion of cases with clinically defined COVID-19 never test positive on RT-PCR despite repeat testing.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA