Selected article for: "collect sample and positive sample"

Author: Fisher, Cynthia; Bornstein, Rebecca; Kuypers, Jane; Boeckh, Michael; Limaye, Ajit; Jerome, Keith
Title: A Prospective Study Comparing Self-Collected Nasal Swabs to Oral Washes for Monitoring Viral Load Kinetics in Lung Transplant Recipients With Respiratory Virus Infection
  • Document date: 2016_10_24
  • ID: kgkyh0w5_3
    Snippet: Results. Six LTR were prospectively enrolled (4 rhinovirus [RhV], 1 coronavirus (CoV); 1 CoV and RhV). Seventy-six total paired daily samples were collected (figure). The median Ct value at diagnosis was 27.4 (range 24.8–31.3), and viral RNA was detected at 14 days in 5 of 6 patients (83%) by at least one method. On days when either sample type was positive (n = 59), 95% of nasal swab versus 73% of oral wash samples were positive (p = 0.001). W.....
    Document: Results. Six LTR were prospectively enrolled (4 rhinovirus [RhV], 1 coronavirus (CoV); 1 CoV and RhV). Seventy-six total paired daily samples were collected (figure). The median Ct value at diagnosis was 27.4 (range 24.8–31.3), and viral RNA was detected at 14 days in 5 of 6 patients (83%) by at least one method. On days when either sample type was positive (n = 59), 95% of nasal swab versus 73% of oral wash samples were positive (p = 0.001). When both concurrent specimen types were positive (n = 40), in 88% of cases the Ct value was lower (corresponding to higher viral load) in nasal swabs than oral washes. Patients successfully collected and mailed 88% (102 of 116) of protocol-defined outpatient samples. All patients rated both sample types as easy and comfortable to collect.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents