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

Results of three rapid immunochromatographic tests (ICTs) were compared with those obtained with two automated immunoassays for evaluation of their usefulness. One hundred fifty-nine patients and 67 healthy volunteers were included. Different assays demonstrate 41-45% of diagnostic sensitivities and 91-98% of specificities, with substantial agreement (89.3-91.2%), but a high percentage of weak positive results (13-22%) was observed with ICTs. ICTs performances were comparable to those of automated immunoassays. ICTs could have a role as screening approach due to their easy usability. Subjective interpretation, significant rate of uncertain results, uncertainty on viral antigens source are undoubtedly drawbacks.

Evaluation of three immunochromatographic tests in COVID-19 serologic diagnosis and their clinical usefulness