3 research outputs found
Abstract Title: CHANGES OVER THE YEARS IN ESBL(+) PRODUCING E. COLI, KLEBSIELLA, AND, CARBAPENEM RESISTANT GRAM-NEGATIVES AND CANDIDA SPECIES OBTAINED FROM BLOOD CULTURES AT THE HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY-ICU UNITS
Real-life experience: sensitivity and specificity of nasal and saliva samples for COVID-19 diagnosis
Background COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) outbreak has spread rapidly around the world, continues to show its effect, and it is not clear how long it will continue. For the diagnosis of COVID-19, it is important to ensure the comfort of the patients and to protect the healthcare workers (HCWs) by reducing the use of protective equipment. Aims To evaluate or assess whether the samples taken by the patient for COVID-19 testing during this pandemic period can be used in real-life experience. Methods Three different samples (nasopharyngeal taken by the healthcare worker, nasopharyngeal, and saliva taken by the patient) from 132 patients were evaluated for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The sensitivity and specificity of the samples in the diagnosis of COVID-19 were compared with real-life experience. Results Paired analyzes were performed by comparing each sample taken by the healthcare worker with the sample taken by the patient. The sensitivity of the three samples (nasopharyngeal taken by the healthcare worker, nasopharyngeal, and saliva taken by the patient) in the diagnosis of the COVID-19 was (100%, 98.7%, and 96.1%, respectively) accepted to be accurate. Conclusions The sample taken by the paramedic was compatible compared to the real-life experience for the samples taken by the patient in the COVID-19 pandemic period. During the pandemic that is unknown when it will end, this study demonstrated that taking the sample of the patient alone for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test is a beneficial approach to the protection of the healthcare worker, reducing the need for protective equipment, increasing the patient's comfort and rapid sampling