ライフサイエンスコーパス: cervical swab

1 ere at least as good as results with FCU and cervical swabs.

2 e compared to local clinical methods used on cervical swabs.

3 nd 3% each from cerebrospinal fluid and endo-cervical swabs.

4 multiplex PCR was compared to culture on 26 cervical swabs, 2 vaginal swabs, 4 female urine specimen

5 in saliva samples, 28% in mouth swabs, 4% in cervical swabs, 2.3% in vaginal swabs, 9% in plasma samp

6 A total of 926 cervical swab, 45 female urine, 6 male urethral swab, an

7 cal swabs (91%) or FCU (80.6%) or culture of cervical swabs (83.5%).

8 high as or higher than NAAT sensitivity with cervical swabs (91%) or FCU (80.6%) or culture of cervic

9 d up every 6 months for 24 months with hrHPV cervical swab and Papanicolaou test with confirmatory bi

10 Both dry cervical swab and specimen transport medium (STM) cervic

11 por type was determined from 100% of paired cervical swab and wick samples from 20 culture-positive

12 hoeae were 92.8 and 96.6%, respectively, for cervical swabs and 80.5 and 84.9% for urine from women.

13 sensitivities of 89.6 and 94.1% with female cervical swabs and 90.9 and 86.4% with male urethral swa

14 h urine (FCU) samples from men and duplicate cervical swabs and FCU samples from women were each test

15 Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared specimens (cervical swabs and first-catch urines [FCU]) for diagnos

16 In women, load was highest for cervical swabs and lowest for urine specimens.

17 ndent reference standards that included both cervical swabs and urethral swab-urine specimens.

18 in reaction (LCR) and PCR tests performed on cervical swabs and urine with the results of PACE 2 test

19 or PACE 2 and to 99.7 and 99.4% for PCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively.

20 or PACE 2 and to 75.8 and 74.9% for PCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively.

21 % for PACE 2 and 99.0 and 98.9% for LCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively.

22 % for PACE 2 and 85.5 and 80.8% for LCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively.

23 that of PCR, and sensitivities obtained with cervical swabs exceeded those obtained with urine specim

24 In addition, the urethral or cervical swabs from the symptomatic subjects were tested

25 Pregnant women with HHV-6 DNA present in cervical swabs had a greater odds of having HHV-6 DNA pr

26 <.0001), but both were found at low rates in cervical swabs (HHV-7 vs. HHV-6 DNA, 3.0% vs. 7.5%; P=.1

27 n LCR performed on PreservCyt and LCR from a cervical swab in LCx transport medium was high (for C. t

28 centrifuged urines (n = 195 and n = 202) and cervical swabs (n = 221 and n = 601) was extracted by th

29 blood than did pregnant women with negative cervical swabs (odds ratio, 12.9; P=.0009).

30 Using either cervical swab or urine LCR-positive tests as the standar

31 Vaginal swab specimens may be preferable to cervical swab or urine specimens for the detection of Ch

32 Agreement of NAAT results between VS and cervical swabs or FCU was calculated.

33 In the first study, 614 cervical swab samples (enriched for HPV infection) from

34 Cervical swab samples available from up to 6 months befo

35 shedding of HSV DNA was detected in 43 (17%) cervical swab samples from 273 women seropositive for HS

36 In the second study, cervical swab samples from 452 women (including 54 women

37 uantified C. trachomatis gene transcripts in cervical swab samples from infected women.

38 wabs; and 92.5% (95% CI, 88.7% to 95.1%) for cervical swab samples in PreservCyt.

39 r effectively detected elevated p16 level in cervical swab samples obtained from 10 patients with pos

40 These constructs and nine cervical swab samples were assayed by real-time PCR with

41 cal swab and specimen transport medium (STM) cervical swab samples were collected from 135 patients a

42 ectively detected HPV-16 in crudely prepared cervical swab samples with high sensitivity and specific

43 In cervical swab samples, cell-free HIV RNA was detected mo

44 tility was validated by detecting HPV DNA in cervical swab samples, highlighting its promise for low-

45 The platform was validated using clinical cervical swab samples, showing 100 % agreement with PCR

46 For cervical swab samples, there was 98.8% positive agreemen

47 swabs (eight studies), 17% (95%CI 7-27%) in cervical swabs (six studies), 15% (95%CI 6-25%) in vagin

48 Cellular adequacy for a cervical swab specimen was defined as the presence of on

49 e same extent that detection of HPV DNA in a cervical swab specimen was.

50 prevalence of any HPV genotype (58% for the cervical swab specimens and 48% for the urine specimens)

51 her vaginal swab specimens are equivalent to cervical swab specimens for the detection of N. gonorrho

52 h, vaginal swab specimens were equivalent to cervical swab specimens for the detection of N. gonorrho

53 irus (HPV) DNA in urine samples and matching cervical swab specimens of HIV-positive women.

54 of discordant detection were greater for the cervical swab specimens than for the urine specimens, th

55 trachomatis detection by LCR on urethral and cervical swab specimens was 96.2 and 97.4% for men and w

56 In the first phase, vaginal and cervical swab specimens were obtained from 455 symptomat

57 Vaginal and cervical swab specimens were positive by LCR for 46 (93.

58 mens were positive by LCR and 42 (91%) of 46 cervical swab specimens were positive by LCR.

59 ctively (kappa = 0.923); 26 (9%) and 23 (8%) cervical swab specimens, respectively (kappa = 0.843); a

60 PCR for the detection of C. trachomatis with cervical swab specimens.

61 ab specimens; 60% and 53%, respectively, for cervical swab specimens; and 58% and 65%, respectively,

62 han 100 copies of HIV-1 RNA were detected in cervical swab supernatants (CSS) from 24 (49%) of 49 wom

63 Sensitivities with a cervical swab-urine PCR standard were 61.9% for PACE 2 a

64 ith the results of PACE 2 tests performed on cervical swabs, using independent reference standards th

65 Cervical swab versus urine differences were significant

66 virus type 1 (HIV-1) nucleic acids from dry cervical swabs was developed.

67 elf-collected vaginal and clinician-obtained cervical swabs were obtained from each subject.

68 0 and 94.7%, respectively), while for women, cervical swabs were superior in sensitivity to urine sam

69 For approach 3, duplicate male urethral or cervical swabs were tested by SDA or by both AC2 and ACT