Selected article for: "negative control and positive control"

Author: Andrews, Denise; Chetty, Yumela; Cooper, Ben S.; Virk, Manjinder; Glass, Stephen K; Letters, Andrew; Kelly, Philip A.; Sudhanva, Malur; Jeyaratnam, Dakshika
Title: Multiplex PCR point of care testing versus routine, laboratory-based testing in the treatment of adults with respiratory tract infections: a quasi-randomised study assessing impact on length of stay and antimicrobial use
  • Document date: 2017_10_10
  • ID: 1sdt9zz8_26
    Snippet: Overall, 124 (22.8%) of the 545 patients had a positive result (Table 3) , 43 (20.4%) in the control arm and 81 (24.3%) in the intervention arm. The viruses and bacteria detected are shown in Table 3 . Every virus on the panels was identified except parainfluenza virus type 1, type 2 and type 4. Only single pathogens were detected by routine testing but FilmArray® detected dual infections in five samples. FilmArray® also detected coronaviruses,.....
    Document: Overall, 124 (22.8%) of the 545 patients had a positive result (Table 3) , 43 (20.4%) in the control arm and 81 (24.3%) in the intervention arm. The viruses and bacteria detected are shown in Table 3 . Every virus on the panels was identified except parainfluenza virus type 1, type 2 and type 4. Only single pathogens were detected by routine testing but FilmArray® detected dual infections in five samples. FilmArray® also detected coronaviruses, not detected using standard tests. There were three and four invalid tests in the control and intervention arms respectively, the remaining tests were negative (78.2% control, 74.6% intervention).

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents