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

We evaluated a cytomegalovirus (CMV) 24-hour shell vial assay (SVA), the Murex Hybrid Capture CMV DNA assay (HCA), and a CMV plasma PCR for the detection of CMV viremia in renal and bone marrow transplant recipients and human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. CMV viremia was detected by at least one method in 125 of 317 evaluable samples (39.4%) from 78 patients and was detected in 19.8% of samples by SVA, 26.8% by HCA, and 32.2% by plasma PCR. There was moderate to substantial agreement between the results of the different tests (kappa coefficient = 0.415 to 0.631). However, HCA and plasma PCR were significantly more sensitive than SVA (P = 0.001 andP &lt; 0.0001, respectively; McNemar’s test), and plasma PCR was more sensitive than HCA (P = 0.031; McNemar’s test). HCA and plasma PCR were more consistently positive than SVA during viremic episodes (P = 0.0002 andP &lt; 0.0001, respectively; McNemar’s test). The use of HCA or plasma PCR may therefore improve the diagnosis and management of CMV disease in susceptible patient groups.

journal of clinical microbiology

Evaluation of the Murex Hybrid Capture Cytomegalovirus DNA Assay versus Plasma PCR and Shell Vial Assay for Diagnosis of Human Cytomegalovirus Viremia in Immunocompromised Patients