ライフサイエンスコーパス: turnaround time

1 es remained; furthermore, culture has a long turnaround time.

2 test for 21 respiratory pathogens with a 1-h turnaround time.

3 s are limited by poor sensitivity and a slow turnaround time.

4 preparation from blood, hence hampering the turnaround time.

5 nd less labor-intensive and has a more rapid turnaround time.

6 rcial biochemical testing but a much shorter turnaround time.

7 is a practical method for decreasing patient turnaround time.

8 based drug susceptibility testing (DST), and turnaround time.

9 se can be timely stopped within a very short turnaround time.

10 PET/CT scans and has the potential to reduce turnaround time.

11 osis is inadequate primarily with respect to turnaround time.

12 ld be performed simultaneously with a 40 min turnaround time.

13 e a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times.

14 nificantly improved laboratory work flow and turnaround times.

15 exes (DI), high test throughputs, costs, and turnaround times.

16 ociated with reductions in reported specimen turnaround times.

17 g highly sophisticated instruments with long turnaround times.

18 a LOD of 0.25% at lower cost and with faster turnaround times.

19 astructure requirements to unacceptably long turnaround times.

20 ays in infectious diseases that demand rapid turnaround times.

21 s to overcome sample transportation and long turnaround times.

22 PCR was employed, which enabled short assay turnaround times.

23 nd agreement between assays and the shortest turnaround times.

24 All four MTP systems had turnaround times 12 to 24 h less than that for Southern

25 gnificant differences in report availability turnaround time (75 minutes [IQR, 19-147 minutes] vs ann

26 This technology provides rapid data turnaround time, a much needed feature during product ch

27 d NGS mandates inexpensive instruments, fast turnaround time and an integrated and robust workflow.

28 n resource-intensive, expensive, have a long turnaround time and are beyond the capacity of most mala

29 ased approach, requiring as little as 9 h of turnaround time and blood volumes as small as 200 microl

30 tion by MALDI-TOF MS potentially reduces the turnaround time and cost, thereby saving resources withi

31 hereby increasing sensitivity while reducing turnaround time and cost.

32 To improve turnaround time and decrease the cost of the identificat

33 significant advantages over CBA in terms of turnaround time and ease of use.

34 The method provides quick sample turnaround time and high analysis throughput with low an

35 diagnostics of septicemia by shortening test turnaround time and improving yields.

36 e pncA gene has the potential to shorten the turnaround time and increase the accuracy of PZA suscept

37 thods and had the advantages of a more rapid turnaround time and potential adaptability to use as an

38 Both models lead to reduced turnaround time and retain flexibility for integrating d

39 small numbers of specimens with a short test turnaround time and short hands-on time is desirable for

40 tory, with a resultant improvement in sample turnaround time and significantly reduced costs.

41 on times by 90-95%, facilitating a very fast turnaround time and suggesting CMT-ELISA for improved hu

42 Potential drawbacks include a slower turnaround time and the need to manipulate amplified pro

43 ing in almost all samples, thus reducing the turnaround time and the workload.

44 The simplified test has faster turnaround time and was 96% concordant with a confirmato

45 marizing, the cytospin FA markedly decreased turnaround time and was associated with decreased mortal

46 The limitations, however, are the various turnaround times and availability of testing.

47 gh microfluidics has the potential to reduce turnaround times and costs for analytical devices, parti

48 ctivity testing typically requires prolonged turnaround times and might be unavailable in resource-po

49 tric MTP systems were likely to improve test turnaround times and patient care at no additional cost.

50 specimens and has the potential of impacting turnaround times and patient care by reducing the need t

51 tation of rapid HSV PCR testing can decrease turnaround times and the duration of unnecessary acyclov

52 gical assay, which considerably improves the turnaround times and throughput for ZIKV diagnosis, was

53 apid (theoretically compatible with same-day turnaround times) and inexpensive for routine clinical u

54 Local epidemiology of CP genotypes, turnaround time, and ease of incorporation into the labo

55 The accuracy, reproducibility, short turnaround time, and high-throughput potential of this p

56 ore with less, enhance quality, improve test turnaround time, and reduce operational expenses.

57 s approach potentially reduces overall cost, turnaround time, and sample volume.

58 racteristics, such as test sensitivity, test turnaround time, and testing interval, were analyzed.

59 However, TEM is labor intensive, has a long turnaround time, and uses equipment that is sometimes no

60 es in patient serum specimens, with improved turnaround times, and can be used for the serological de

61 fers from poor sensitivity, potentially long turnaround times, and complicated ordering practices and

62 ; especially for applications requiring fast turnaround times, and in settings where a centralized la

63 arly in clinical settings where accuracy and turnaround times are critical.

64 Tests with excellent performance and rapid turnaround times are needed.

65 The goal is to minimize cost and turnaround time between fabrication runs; thereby, allow

66 ere was a significant difference in the mean turnaround time between the ribotyping and MLVA typing (

67 t require a derivatization step, reduces the turnaround time by 10-fold compared to conventional meth

68 24 h after inoculation, which shortens test turnaround time by 2 to 3 days.

69 mode, the Lyra assay reduced intralaboratory turnaround time by 60% (18.1 h versus 45.0 h) but increa

70 ity to run batches of 24 samples reduced the turnaround time by 83% (54 min) compared with that for b

71 ation of this test significantly reduced the turnaround time by 93.3% (P < 0.001), calculated from th

72 The TaqMan methods dramatically decrease the turnaround time by eliminating post-PCR processing.

73 al outcomes of suspected CDV cases, with 2-h turnaround times, by using the CDV FAT.

74 linical specimens in a significantly shorter turnaround time compared to culture.

75 ensitivity, similar selectivity, and shorter turnaround time compared to standard enzyme-linked immun

76 Bedside laboratory testing decreases turnaround time compared with a near-patient laboratory.

77 ite this, its improved sensitivity and rapid turnaround time compared with those of culture are appea

78 detection of multiple GI pathogens improved turnaround time, consolidated laboratory workflow, and s

79 Laboratory turnaround time decreased from 9.8 to 1.7 h for report o

80 Concerns of workflow and turnaround time drive interest in developing shorter fix

81 yping of MRSA strains because of the shorter turnaround time, ease of use, and the inherent advantage

82 r from several disadvantages, including long turnaround times, excess sample and reagent consumption,

83 The mean turnaround time for all positive viruses was 4.5 days in

84 The mean turnaround time for externally authored protocols was im

85 f misinterpretations, owing in part to rapid turnaround time for final reporting.

86 say was 95.8%, with significant decreases in turnaround time for identification and resistance detect

87 project was successful in improving the mean turnaround time for internally authored protocols (P < .

88 echnologist time (and, thus, labor cost) and turnaround time for laboratories analyzing small numbers

89 We measured turnaround time for microscopy and estimated hypothetica

90 s and clinical specimens, which improves the turnaround time for molecular DST and maximizes the bene

91 The slow turnaround time for Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susc

92 Rapid diagnostic testing reduces the turnaround time for pathogen identification in the clini

93 erculosis complex hinders the improvement of turnaround time for phenotypic drug susceptibility testi

94 identification, significantly affecting the turnaround time for reporting culture results.

95 LightCycler PCR for detection of VZV, rapid turnaround time for reporting results, virtual eliminati

96 ular tests, and this approach can reduce the turnaround time for reporting results.

97 say over culture is the considerably reduced turnaround time for results.

98 hat the cost of echinocandin therapy and the turnaround time for send-out testing had the potential t

99 o be tested, timing of ordering of tests and turnaround time for testing results.

100 A longer turnaround time for the centralized testing than when te

101 The average HSV PCR test turnaround time for the postimplementation group was red

102 nd have the potential to dramatically reduce turnaround time for the provision of results to the trea

103 The average turnaround time for the reporting of AST results was 39.

104 In this study, we evaluated workflows and turnaround times for a benchtop long-read sequencing app

105 rd" culture-based method, and the laboratory turnaround times for both methods were determined.

106 The hands-on and test turnaround times for CIA were 10 and 30 to 60 min, respe

107 The turnaround times for conventional methods used to detect

108 ral replication, have allowed for reasonable turnaround times for even some of the most slowly growin

109 The positivity rates, turnaround times for positive cultures, and BD Phoenix i

110 ages of laboratories meeting the recommended turnaround times for reporting M. tuberculosis testing r

111 Mycobacterium tuberculosis testing and their turnaround times for reporting testing results.

112 er, these methods are resource intensive and turnaround times for results have prevented widespread i

113 Serum and blood swab samples had shorter turnaround times for RNA extraction.

114 both a high degree of sensitivity and rapid turnaround times for the detection of influenza A virus.

115 min, respectively, and the hands-on and test turnaround times for the RSV and hMPV DFAs were 30 and 1

116 me for microscopy and estimated hypothetical turnaround times for Xpert on concentrated and unconcent

117 g on-site hormone analysis, with a 12-minute turnaround time from blood sampling to assay result.

118 For flow cell version R9.4, the estimated turnaround time from patient to identification of BCG, d

119 e value is greatly increased by reducing the turnaround time from positive culture to genotyping resu

120 s the potential to significantly shorten the turnaround time from specimen receipt to reporting of re

121 steps and thus, significantly reduces assay turnaround time (from selection to enumeration <1.5 h as

122 only workflow that balances accuracy against turnaround time, full annotation of plasmid resistance g

123 The turnaround time has been reduced, with improved precisio

124 liably subtyped by various methods, the long turnaround times, high cost, and limited availability of

125 The long turnaround time in antimicrobial susceptibility testing

126 MRSA nasal colonization and provided shorter turnaround time in generating positive and negative fina

127 mbers of samples are be analyzed and/or when turnaround time is critical.

128 times are on the order of a few minutes and turnaround time is extremely short as there is no need f

129 The turnaround time is faster than other methods.

130 The sample turnaround time is less than 8 h for simultaneous determ

131 gh sensitivity and specificity and the rapid turnaround time made the SmartCycler RT-PCR valuable for

132 Enhanced sensitivity and rapid turnaround time make the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay an impor

133 These qualities, along with the rapid turnaround time, make Lymph2Cx attractive for implementa

134 agnostic yield of clinical exome sequencing, turnaround time, molecular findings, patient age at diag

135 We conclude that the rapid turnaround time, multiplex nature of the test (allowing

136 With superior sensitivities and quicker turnaround times, non-culture-based methods may aid the

137 To demonstrate the short assay turnaround times obtainable using the RT-LDR/spFRET assa

138 ifficile Epi assay, a PCR-based assay with a turnaround time of <1 h.

139 able and straightforward to implement with a turnaround time of <1 week.

140 BloC-Printing has a minimum turnaround time of 0.5 h, a maximum resolution of 5 micr

141 of 33.1 (5.6) days of life with a mean (SEM) turnaround time of 13.0 (0.4) days.

142 e cytotoxin neutralization test (CYT) with a turnaround time of 24 to 48 h, versus the Cepheid Xpert

143 specificity and achieved a sample-to-answer turnaround time of 30 min.

144 ed by hospital laboratories with an expected turnaround time of 5 hr or less by 71% of organ procurem

145 low-pressure matrix injection (40 psi) and a turnaround time of 70 min for 48-96 samples.

146 ficity compared with reference methods and a turnaround time of 90 min.

147 s the potentially life-saving advantage of a turnaround time of about 10min (versus 4+hours for conve

148 itive than the xTAG RVP Fast assay and had a turnaround time of approximately 1 h.

149 s, a more extensive menu of pathogens, and a turnaround time of as short as 1 h.

150 ion Programme, but these are hindered by the turnaround time of culture.

151 s directly analyzed by DESI-MS, with a total turnaround time of less than 10 min/sample.

152 idate for point-of-care testing, with a test turnaround time of less than 15 min.

153 With an assay turnaround time of less than 2 h, including extraction o

154 e MTBC in growth-positive MGIT resulted in a turnaround time of less than 2 weeks after specimen rece

155 be finished within 1 h and thus shortens the turnaround time of MTBC identification of gold standard

156 With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated cli

157 perators and expensive equipment, and have a turnaround time of several hours to days.

158 The experimental setup and fast turnaround time of the two methods contributed toward ob

159 nt sensitivity and specificity and the rapid turnaround time of the Xpert PCR assay as well as its st

160 nza compared to conventional methods (median turnaround times of 1.7 h versus 7.7 h, respectively; P

161 Sample turnaround times of 10 s/sample, with a 120-nL sample co

162 nds-on time of approximately 60 min and test turnaround times of 6 h (ResPlex II) and 9 h (NGEN).

163 prolonged incubation times involved lead to turnaround times of typically 1 day, potentially delayin

164 patitis B virus tests, a reduction in sample turnaround times of up to 30% (105 min) was observed for

165 isadvantages including low sensitivity, slow turnaround times, or high cost.

166 The improved turnaround time provided by genotypic identification sys

167 The rapid turnaround time, random access, full automation, and hig

168 To minimise turnaround time, rapid DST will need to be prioritised,

169 Given their accuracy, convenience, and quick turnaround time, RDTs and POCTs may be useful in expandi

170 efficiencies to meet increasingly stringent turnaround time requirements without increased costs ass

171 To meet high throughput and rapid turnaround time requirements, newborn screening laborato

172 The impact of variability in turnaround time, sensitivity, specificity, and cost on c

173 Rapid turnaround times should reduce treatment delay and impro

174 ck of standard specimen containers, and long turnaround time (TAT) hindered access to quality laborat

175 Staphylococcus QuickFISH has a turnaround time (TAT) of <30 min and a hands-on time (HO

176 However, improving the turnaround time (TAT) of a test requires attention to mo

177 formed on a single specimen can increase the turnaround time (TAT) significantly.

178 Test turnaround time (TAT) was measured in business days from

179 ion method to the standard QIAGEN method for turnaround time (TAT), cost, purity, and use of template

180 Operating room (OR) turnaround times (TATs) and on-time first-case starts (F

181 mpact of these new technologies, we compared turnaround times (TATs) for positive and negative urine

182 racteristics, usefulness of EVD with DD, and turnaround times (TATs).

183 racteristics, usefulness of EVD with DD, and turnaround times (TATs).

184 These results indicate that this short-turnaround-time test can be used to accurately test pati

185 r sensitivity than direct testing and better turnaround time than current culture and identification

186 achieving greater sensitivities and shorter turnaround times than conventional assays and an ability

187 the overall gains of efficiency, the shorter turnaround time, the inclusion of contamination control

188 of rpoB required a slightly longer (16 days) turnaround time, this method was capable of identifying

189 ter PCR minimizes cycling times and improves turnaround time, throughput, and specificity.

190 y improved the sensitivity detection and the turnaround time to diagnosis compared to culture.

191 lieve that our efforts not only decrease the turnaround time to obtain scientific results but also ha

192 re providing increased sensitivity and rapid turnaround time to results but also challenging our inte

193 formation on possible stroke events in short turnaround times using RT-LDR/spFRET will enable clinici

194 Typical turnaround times vary, due to assay incubation periods a

195 r time was <24 h, while our sample-to-answer turnaround time was <60 h with a hands-on time of approx

196 The mean PCR turnaround time was 14.5 h.

197 Mean turnaround time was 16.5 +/-10.1 mins for the near-patie

198 The median LRP-based susceptibility turnaround time was 2 days (range, 2 to 4 days) compared

199 The turnaround time was shortened to 24 h, and results were

200 In addition, turnaround time was significantly shorter for the PCR-ba

201 encing technology with a clinically relevant turnaround time, we retrospectively sequenced the DNA fr

202 pecimens was run, the hands-on time and test turnaround time were 105.7 and 121.1 min for miniMAG, 6.

203 Additionally, LS-AMS turnaround times were minutes instead of days, and HPLC

204 Examination completion turnaround times were significantly increased for radiog

205 lity, but they often require several days of turnaround time, which leads to compromised clinical out

206 ency department (ED) imaging utilization and turnaround times, which were compared with operations fr

207 cess was simple to implement and had a quick turnaround time with low cost.