operacyjny i psychiczny na te jednostki” Test antygenowy: https://t.co/Vb7u26BjO8 Dodatni test PCR może się utrzymywać się przez kilka miesięcy pomimo, że Pacjent NIE JEST ZAKAŹNY https://t.co/Nttoc8S9Me https://t.co/v4JBXSzfoG
RT @SaiyanBio: D’ailleurs, je ne suis pas le seul à le dire 👇
RT @jhilden: According to this, a single rapid test will be somewhat better than throwing dice without symptoms and even with symptoms ¼ ca…
According to this, a single rapid test will be somewhat better than throwing dice without symptoms and even with symptoms ¼ can be a false negative. Positives are most likely correct! But don’t assume you’re free of infection from one single test. https:
13/ This workaround remains largely unproven at scale. Some newer studies are suggest it’s worth a try. That said, the data isn’t solidly behind it, which explains why the UK’s program is limited to *asymptomatic* low-risk persons https://t.co/GmeNbUYDsU
@PlantBiochemist @CDCofBC Here's a review of studies into those tests' accuracy: https://t.co/g36ajlvPDn Tldr: High rate of false negatives. In some cases very high. Your brother should be slightly reassured but should self-isolate until symptoms go away
Rapid (antigen) COVID tests are popular now, but I’m concerned (though no expert on this) they may actually increase risk/spread by giving people false confidence: Average 72% identification of symptomatic COVID, 58% for asymptomatic: Lousy performance!: h
might interest @i_petersen @tomayates calculations here https://t.co/1r4SMzoeen based on an asymptomatic test - sensitivity 58.1% and specificity 99.6%. ref: https://t.co/3wlB8XQrKT
@MaikScheler @chris__xx @Traceelord @Diergarten1 Schnelltests haben eine Genauigkeit von 56 % bei asymptomatischen Infektionen und schlagen auch erst an, wenn man ansteckend ist. Das verhindert also kaum neue Infektionen. Quelle: https://t.co/dF0j9wNweN N
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
@c_drosten apropos of a tweet of yours from about 3 weeks ago. The 20 people that used RAT's to screen before a party.
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
@thaddeuswalsh @xanabon That's actually not true. Rapid tests are very effective, >95%, at detecting *infectious* disease. PCR will continue to show positive long after a person is no longer infectious - for many weeks. But that isn't an effective mitig
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
@theonlyleila hey Leila! I found this thread informative & surprising:
@nntaleb @michaelmina_lab Some # on antigen tests vs pcr here. https://t.co/4CAbEEzqY8
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
#covid19bc #bcpoli How accurate are rapid tests for diagnosing COVID-19? https://t.co/c5tPHj5DQC
@SaskHealth In people who did not have COVID-19, antigen tests correctly ruled out infection in 99.5% of people with symptoms and 98.9% of people without symptoms." https://t.co/vEhj99utAi
Both these figures are very concerning. In my house we've been using -ve lateral flow tests as a green light to visit family. I am now rethinking this (my partner has high risk for exposure as he works in retail).
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
集まる時は抗原検査配って使ってたけど、キツイな https://t.co/fchYKQUjpZ
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
Du vet når du har symptom. Hold deg hjemme hvis syk. Men klart - kommer det en nedstengning og du er redd for at du ikke får gjort x, ja da hjelper nok lite.
@marleyHere41 @SusannS45948112 @SHomburg @10117wm Ich sage, dass Schnelltests eine signifikant verminderte Erkennungsrate haben. Die Effektivität oder das Ausbleiben solcher ist gut dokumentiert in !!64 Studien!!. Einfach mal aus der unabhängigen Quelle in
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @Margag_: @deedee00111 Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infect…
@dangerman_hh @lovelyropes @FAZ_Politik Die werden ja dreimal pro Woche getestet, das ist auf jeden Fall näher dran als bei Erwachsenen. Die Sensitivität von Tests ist höher (https://t.co/o5At1s7aEG).
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
@deedee00111 Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness https://t.co/NVbwaqNO
RT @SaiyanBio: D’ailleurs, je ne suis pas le seul à le dire 👇
D’ailleurs, je ne suis pas le seul à le dire 👇
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
Your response? https://t.co/qOnVGh4RGr https://t.co/5iltMQVMHc
@rdumont99 @EisenkraftFam That data is correct. https://t.co/aSgcCCHGgl
How accurate are rapid tests for diagnosing COVID-19? | Cochrane https://t.co/uYwPnAJbUI
@thisoldhowse @CynthiaGillis77 @DrKateTO @NaheedD @SharkawyMD I don’t know who told you that but it is completely wrong. Here is a study from a very reliable source https://t.co/2rhV0wVOuI
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
10/ Actualmente las pruebas de antígeno se han vuelto populares como prueba de no infección, para asisitir a eventos y estar en contacto con otras personas. En este estudio se hace una revisión de varias pruebas y que sensibilidad y específicidad tienen:
@michaelmina_lab @TheOttLab @stef_friedhoff @Karl_Lauterbach Rapid, point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection https://t.co/1BAzk9PawX @cochranecollab
RT @tweeter4truth: Before making 🎄HOLIDAY PLANS 🎄... DO YOU KNOW how reliable #RapidTests are? 👇
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
@melissanlav RI should devote more resources to ensuring K-12 students and staff have access to PCR results quickly, but schools should definitely not rely on rapid tests instead👇
@KkanCanada @MoonGlo33 @naturesmything @DFisman @fordnation @celliottability @Sflecce @michaelmina_lab https://t.co/4yK3H741Fm sorry I'm not too slick with Twitter. This is what I read recently.
Before making 🎄HOLIDAY PLANS 🎄... DO YOU KNOW how reliable #RapidTests are? 👇
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @trahana: @michaelmina_lab And your take on this?
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
@berenddeboer That they miss 28%-51% of active samples might be the reason the Gov are hesitant, esp when the more accurate PCR swab testing stations are not overwhelmed https://t.co/06nS9cR1eH
RT @hilzoy: This is important.
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @EbonyJHilton_MD: Read twice.
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @ChrisWalkerCBC: If this is why BC isn’t using more rapid tests, they’ve done a bad job explaining it.
RT @EbonyJHilton_MD: Read twice.
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…
RT @EbonyJHilton_MD: Read twice.
RT @DataDrivenMD: 🧵/Unpopular fact: rapid tests should *not* be used to rule out #COVID19 infection. A review of scientific data carried ou…