Table 2.xls (5.5 kB)
Specificity and sensitivity of the test based on results from 30 blinded samples (5 negative and 25 positive) and the 10 laboratories.
dataset
posted on 2022-01-13, 18:44 authored by Margaret G. Mills, Emily Bruce, Meei-Li Huang, Jessica W. Crothers, Ollivier Hyrien, Christopher A. L. Oura, Lemar Blake, Arianne Brown Jordan, Susan Hester, Leah Wehmas, Bernard Mari, Pascal Barby, Caroline Lacoux, Julien Fassy, Pablo Vial, Cecilia Vial, Jose R. W. Martinez, Olusola Olalekan Oladipo, Bitrus Inuwa, Ismaila Shittu, Clement A. Meseko, Roger Chammas, Carlos Ferreira Santos, Thiago José Dionísio, Thais Francini Garbieri, Viviane Aparecida Parisi, Maria Cassia Mendes-Correa, Anderson V. de Paula, Camila M. Romano, Luiz Gustavo Bentim Góes, Paola Minoprio, Angelica C. Campos, Marielton P. Cunha, Ana Paula P. Vilela, Tonney Nyirenda, Rajhab Sawasawa Mkakosya, Adamson S. Muula, Rebekah E. Dumm, Rebecca M. Harris, Constance A. Mitchell, Syril Pettit, Jason Botten, Keith R. JeromeSpecificity and sensitivity of the test based on results from 30 blinded samples (5 negative and 25 positive) and the 10 laboratories.
History
Usage metrics
Categories
Keywords
viral transport mediapurified nucleic acidsgenerate actionable datafewer experimental resourcesless &# 8221oral pharyngeal samplesconcordance across laboratoriesaccessible qualitative methodless &# 8220direct &# 8221pcr assay methods&# 8220participating laboratoriesnegative samplesdirect rtresults suggestreliable detectionqpcr methodpotently inhibitpcr reactionobserved 100lower costhouse equipmentfeasible optionequipment shortagesefficient covidcorrect identificationcontain charcoalcommon reagentscommon protocol2 rna2 detection2 ).
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC