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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

id antigen test and rRT-PCR. A total of 124 (10.1%) patients showed a discrepancy between the two tests. Among them, 116 (9.4%) were only positive for rRT-PCR and 8 (0.7%) were only positive for the rapid antigen test. The latter 8 patients all showed negative H1/M2 results in rRT-PCR. There were significant differences in detection rates of the rapid antigen test between different H1 Ct (threshold cycle) interval groups and for different age groups (P 0.05). Conclusion: Although the rapid antigen test is easy to perform and provides fast results, its limits as a screening test for detection of novel swine influenza (H1N1) due to its low sensitivity compared to rRTPCR need to be considered in practical situations. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2010;13:109-113)

Comparison of Rapid Antigen Test and Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase PCR for Diagnosing Novel Swine Influenza A (H1N1)