English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The following six methods for detecting rotavirus in human faecal samples were compared: electron microscopy, immune electron microscopy, immunofluorescence in cell culture, two enzyme immunoassays (Rotazyme, Enzygnost ) and a latex agglutination test ( Rotalex ). Specimens were collected from 112 children with diarrhoea. The relative sensitivities of the different assays for human rotavirus were as follows: electron microscopy, 84%; immunofluorescence, 86%; Rotalex , 88%; Rotazyme, 89%; immune electron microscopy, 93%; Enzygnost , 98%. According to our findings Enzygnost is the most sensitive method, but Rotalex is more valuable for screening a small number of faecal samples. No false-positive results were observed in the two enzyme immunoassays or in Rotalex .

Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools