Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
J Med Internet Res ; 25: e42325, 2023 04 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255007

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Basic life support (BLS) education is essential for improving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rates, but the imparting of such education faces obstacles during the outbreak of emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. When face-to-face teaching is limited, distance learning-blended learning (BL) or an online-only model-is encouraged. However, evidence regarding the effect of online-only CPR training is scarce, and comparative studies on classroom-based BL (CBL) are lacking. While other strategies have recommended self-directed learning and deliberate practice to enhance CPR education, no previous studies have incorporated all of these instructional methods into a BLS course. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate a novel BLS training model-remote practice BL (RBL)-and compare its educational outcomes with those of the conventional CBL model. METHODS: A static-group comparison study was conducted. It included RBL and CBL courses that shared the same paradigm, comprising online lectures, a deliberate practice session with Little Anne quality CPR (QCPR) manikin feedback, and a final assessment session. In the main intervention, the RBL group was required to perform distant self-directed deliberate practice and complete the final assessment via an online video conference. Manikin-rated CPR scores were measured as the primary outcome; the number of retakes of the final examination was the secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 52 and 104 participants from the RBL and CBL groups, respectively, were eligible for data analysis. A comparison of the 2 groups revealed that there were more women in the RBL group than the CBL group (36/52, 69.2% vs 51/104, 49%, respectively; P=.02). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in scores for QCPR release (96.9 vs 96.4, respectively; P=.61), QCPR depth (99.2 vs 99.5, respectively; P=.27), or QCPR rate (94.9 vs 95.5, respectively; P=.83). The RBL group spent more days practicing before the final assessment (12.4 vs 8.9 days, respectively; P<.001) and also had a higher number of retakes (1.4 vs 1.1 times, respectively; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a remote practice BL-based method for online-only distant BLS CPR training. In terms of CPR performance, using remote self-directed deliberate practice was not inferior to the conventional classroom-based instructor-led method, although it tended to take more time to achieve the same effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Humans , Female , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/education , Educational Measurement/methods , Learning , Feedback , Manikins
2.
J Telemed Telecare ; : 1357633X221124175, 2022 Sep 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2020652

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Isolated spaces impair communication and teamwork during tracheal intubation (TI) in suspected coronavirus disease 2019 patients. We thus aimed to evaluate the telemedicine-assisted airway model (TAM) to improve communication and teamwork during the pandemic. METHODS: This two-stage prospective study included adult patients intubated in the emergency department of the National Taiwan University Hospital between 1 August 2020 and 31 July 2021. First, we randomised patients receiving TI in the standard setting into the conventional group (Con-G) and the isolation area into the isolation group (Iso-G). We evaluated the obstacles to communication and teamwork in an isolation scenario. Second, we developed the TAM to facilitate communication and teamwork between staff in separate spaces during TI and assigned patients to the TAM group (TAM-G). Communication and teamwork were evaluated using the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). Subjective evaluations were conducted using a questionnaire administered to medical staff. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were enrolled: 17, 34, and 38 in the Con-G, Iso-G, and TAM-G, respectively. The communication frequency (CF) of the Con-G and Iso-G was the highest and lowest, respectively. The CF of the TAM-G increased and approached that of the Con-G. The overall TEAM score was the highest in the Con-G and the lowest in the Iso-G, while the overall score in the TAM-G was comparable to that of the Con-G. DISCUSSION: The TAM may improve communication and teamwork for TIs without compromising efficacy during the pandemic. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; registration numbers: NCT04479332 and NCT04591873.

3.
PLoS ONE Vol 16(6), 2021, ArtID e0252841 ; 16(6), 2021.
Article in English | APA PsycInfo | ID: covidwho-1790608

ABSTRACT

Background: Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, have negative impacts on bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) for fear of transmission while breaking social distancing rules. The latest guidelines recommend hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and facemask use. However, public willingness in this setup remains unknown. Methods: A cross-sectional, unrestricted volunteer Internet survey was conducted to assess individuals' attitudes and behaviors toward performing BCPR, pre-existing CPR training, occupational identity, age group, and gender. The raking method for weights and a regression analysis for the predictors of willingness were performed. Results: Among 1,347 eligible respondents, 822 (61%) had negative attitudes toward performing BCPR. Healthcare providers (HCPs) and those with pre-existing CPR training had fewer negative attitudes (p < 0.001);HCPs and those with pre-existing CPR training and unchanged attitude showed more positive behaviors toward BCPR (p < 0.001). Further, 9.7% of the respondents would absolutely refuse to perform BCPR. In contrast, 16.9% would perform BCPR directly despite the outbreak. Approximately 9.9% would perform it if they were instructed, 23.5%, if they wore facemasks, and 40.1%, if they were to perform hands-only CPR. Interestingly, among the 822 respondents with negative attitudes, over 85% still tended to perform BCPR in the abovementioned situations. The weighted analysis showed similar results. The adjusted predictors for lower negative attitudes toward BCPR were younger age, being a man, and being an HCP;those for more positive behaviors were younger age and being an HCP. Conclusions: Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, have negative impacts on attitudes and behaviors toward BCPR. Younger individuals, men, HCPs, and those with pre-existing CPR training tended to show fewer negative attitudes and behaviors. Meanwhile, most individuals with negative attitudes still expressed positive behaviors under safer measures such as facemask protection, hands-only CPR, and available dispatch instructions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

4.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(4): e36830, 2022 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775590

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is an important intervention to prevent the incidence and spread of serious diseases. Many factors including information obtained from the internet influence individuals' decisions to vaccinate. Misinformation is a critical issue and can be hard to detect, although it can change people's minds, opinions, and decisions. The impact of misinformation on public health and vaccination hesitancy is well documented, but little research has been conducted on the relationship between the size of the population reached by misinformation and the vaccination decisions made by that population. A number of fact-checking services are available on the web, including the Islander news analysis system, a free web service that provides individuals with real-time judgment on web news. In this study, we used such services to estimate the amount of fake news available and used Google Trends levels to model the spread of fake news. We quantified this relationship using official public data on COVID-19 vaccination in Taiwan. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to quantify the impact of the magnitude of the propagation of fake news on vaccination decisions. METHODS: We collected public data about COVID-19 infections and vaccination from Taiwan's official website and estimated the popularity of searches using Google Trends. We indirectly collected news from 26 digital media sources, using the news database of the Islander system. This system crawls the internet in real time, analyzes the news, and stores it. The incitement and suspicion scores of the Islander system were used to objectively judge news, and a fake news percentage variable was produced. We used multivariable linear regression, chi-square tests, and the Johnson-Neyman procedure to analyze this relationship, using weekly data. RESULTS: A total of 791,183 news items were obtained over 43 weeks in 2021. There was a significant increase in the proportion of fake news in 11 of the 26 media sources during the public vaccination stage. The regression model revealed a positive adjusted coefficient (ß=0.98, P=.002) of vaccine availability on the following week's vaccination doses, and a negative adjusted coefficient (ß=-3.21, P=.04) of the interaction term on the fake news percentage with the Google Trends level. The Johnson-Neiman plot of the adjusted effect for the interaction term showed that the Google Trends level had a significant negative adjustment effect on vaccination doses for the following week when the proportion of fake news exceeded 39.3%. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant relationship between the amount of fake news to which the population was exposed and the number of vaccination doses administered. Reducing the amount of fake news and increasing public immunity to misinformation will be critical to maintain public health in the internet age.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Disinformation , Humans , Internet , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Taiwan/epidemiology , Vaccination
6.
J Nurs Manag ; 30(2): 367-374, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714244

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 frontline nurses' stress-reduction programme by the cooperation of manager with the nurses is not-well developed. AIM: This study aimed to examine the effect of an emergency nurse-led stress-reduction project on reducing stress levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The action research was conducted using online and person-to-person group brainstorming strategies. The online survey was used to evaluate emergency nurses' stress levels, causes of stress and needs at the 50th, 80th and 110th days of the pandemic from March to May 2020. RESULTS: The numbers of nurses participating in three-time survey were 160, 166 and 160, respectively. There was a decrease in the nurses' work-related stress after implementing the improvement strategies. Stress from personal protective equipment (PPE), information about infection control and family's worry about being infected reduced across 2 months. Needs regarding PPE, COVID-19 information and a forum for sharing experiences of COVID-19 care decreased whereas needs of allowing more days off increased. CONCLUSIONS: The stress-reduction project targeting at nurses' views of their needs can reduce their stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The online and person-to-person group brainstorming building a good partnership between nurses and managers can be an effective nursing management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Nurse's Role , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Taiwan/epidemiology
7.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0252841, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280621

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, have negative impacts on bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) for fear of transmission while breaking social distancing rules. The latest guidelines recommend hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and facemask use. However, public willingness in this setup remains unknown. METHODS: A cross-sectional, unrestricted volunteer Internet survey was conducted to assess individuals' attitudes and behaviors toward performing BCPR, pre-existing CPR training, occupational identity, age group, and gender. The raking method for weights and a regression analysis for the predictors of willingness were performed. RESULTS: Among 1,347 eligible respondents, 822 (61%) had negative attitudes toward performing BCPR. Healthcare providers (HCPs) and those with pre-existing CPR training had fewer negative attitudes (p < 0.001); HCPs and those with pre-existing CPR training and unchanged attitude showed more positive behaviors toward BCPR (p < 0.001). Further, 9.7% of the respondents would absolutely refuse to perform BCPR. In contrast, 16.9% would perform BCPR directly despite the outbreak. Approximately 9.9% would perform it if they were instructed, 23.5%, if they wore facemasks, and 40.1%, if they were to perform hands-only CPR. Interestingly, among the 822 respondents with negative attitudes, over 85% still tended to perform BCPR in the abovementioned situations. The weighted analysis showed similar results. The adjusted predictors for lower negative attitudes toward BCPR were younger age, being a man, and being an HCP; those for more positive behaviors were younger age and being an HCP. CONCLUSIONS: Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, have negative impacts on attitudes and behaviors toward BCPR. Younger individuals, men, HCPs, and those with pre-existing CPR training tended to show fewer negative attitudes and behaviors. Meanwhile, most individuals with negative attitudes still expressed positive behaviors under safer measures such as facemask protection, hands-only CPR, and available dispatch instructions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/psychology , Public Opinion , Adult , Aged , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/education , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hand , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Male , Masks , Middle Aged , Taiwan , Young Adult
8.
Front Immunol ; 12: 626609, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259344

ABSTRACT

Accurate detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies provides a more accurate estimation of incident cases, epidemic dynamics, and risk of community transmission. We conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence study specifically targeting different populations to examine the performance of pandemic control in Taiwan: symptomatic patients with epidemiological risk and negative qRT-PCR test (Group P), frontline healthcare workers (Group H), healthy adult citizens (Group C), and participants with prior virologically-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) infection in 2003 (Group S). The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 total and IgG antibodies in all participants were determined by Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 test and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, respectively. Sera that showed positive results by the two chemiluminescent immunoassays were further tested by three anti-SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow immunoassays and line immunoassay (MIKROGEN recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG). Between June 29 and July 25, 2020, sera of 2,115 participates, including 499 Group P participants, 464 Group H participants, 1,142 Group C participants, and 10 Group S participants, were tested. After excluding six false-positive samples, SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence were 0.4, 0, and 0% in Groups P, H, and C, respectively. Cross-reactivity with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was observed in 80.0% of recovered SARS participants. Our study showed that rigorous exclusion of false-positive testing results is imperative for an accurate estimate of seroprevalence in countries with previous SARS outbreak and low COVID-19 prevalence. The overall SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was extremely low among populations of different exposure risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 in Taiwan, supporting the importance of integrated countermeasures in containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 before effective COVID-19 vaccines available.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Cross Reactions , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/immunology , Taiwan/epidemiology
9.
J Microbiol Immunol Infect ; 54(5): 816-829, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1096116

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Our study goals were to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies tests and the differences in dynamic immune responses between COVID-19 patients with and without pneumonia. METHODS: We collected 184 serum samples from 70 consecutively qRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients at four participating hospitals from 23 January 2020 to 30 September 2020. COVID-19 pneumonia was defined as the presence of new pulmonary infiltration. Serum samples were grouped by the duration after symptom onset on a weekly basis for antibody testing and analysis. The four immunoassays: Beckman SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM (Beckman Test), Siemens (ADVIA Centaur®) SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) (Siemens Test), SBC COVID-19 IgG ELISA (SBC Test) and EliA SARS-CoV-2-Sp1 IgG/IgM/IgA P2 Research (EliA Test) were used for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. RESULTS: The sensitivity of all tests reached 100% after 42 days of symptom onset. Siemens Test, the only test detecting total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, had the best performance in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (day 0-7: 77%; day 8-14: 95%) compared to the other 3 serological tests. All tests showed 100% specificity except SBC Test (98%). COVID-19 patients with pneumonia had significantly higher testing signal values than patients without pneumonia (all p values < 0.05, except EliA IgM Test). However, Siemens Test and SBC Test had highest probability in early prediction of the presence of COVID-19 pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Chronological analysis of immune response among COVID-19 patients with different serological tests provides important information in the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and prediction of the risk of pneumonia after infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay/methods , Pneumonia/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibody Formation , Early Diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , False Positive Reactions , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin A/blood , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests , Taiwan
11.
Emerg Microbes Infect ; 9(1): 2157-2168, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-780276

ABSTRACT

This multicenter, retrospective study included 346 serum samples from 74 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 194 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients to evaluate the performance of five anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests, i.e. two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs): Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche Test) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Test), and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs): Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Test), ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (ASK Test), and Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Test). We found high diagnostic sensitivities (%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for the Roche Test (97.4%, 93.4-99.0%), Abbott Test (94.0%, 89.1-96.8%), Wondfo Test (91.4%, 85.8-94.9%), ASK Test (97.4%, 93.4-99.0%), and Dynamiker Test (90.1%, 84.3-94.0%) after >21 days of symptom onset. Meanwhile, the diagnostic specificity was 99.0% (95% CI, 96.3-99.7%) for the Roche Test, 97.9% (95% CI, 94.8-99.2%) for the Abbott Test, and 100.0% (95% CI, 98.1-100.0%) for the three LFIAs. Cross-reactivity was observed in sera containing anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgG/IgM antibodies and autoantibodies. No difference was observed in the time to seroconversion detection of the five serological tests. Specimens from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia demonstrated a shorter seroconversion time and higher chemiluminescent signal than those without pneumonia. Our data suggested that understanding the dynamic antibody response after COVID-19 infection and performance characteristics of different serological test are crucial for the appropriate interpretation of serological test result for the diagnosis and risk assessment of patient with COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Immunoassay/methods , Luminescent Measurements/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cross Reactions/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunoassay/standards , Luminescent Measurements/standards , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroconversion , Serologic Tests , Severity of Illness Index , Taiwan/epidemiology
12.
J Med Internet Res ; 22(6): e20586, 2020 06 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-742636

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Frontline health care workers, including physicians, are at high risk of contracting coronavirus disease (COVID-19) owing to their exposure to patients suspected of having COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and feasibility of a double triage and telemedicine protocol in improving infection control in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: In this retrospective study, we recruited patients aged ≥20 years referred to the ED of the National Taiwan University Hospital between March 1 and April 30, 2020. A double triage and telemedicine protocol was developed to triage suggested COVID-19 cases and minimize health workers' exposure to this disease. We categorized patients attending video interviews into a telemedicine group and patients experiencing face-to-face interviews into a conventional group. A questionnaire was used to assess how patients perceived the quality of the interviews and their communication with physicians as well as perceptions of stress, discrimination, and privacy. Each question was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Physicians' total exposure time and total evaluation time were treated as primary outcomes, and the mean scores of the questions were treated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The final sample included 198 patients, including 93 cases (47.0%) in the telemedicine group and 105 cases (53.0%) in the conventional group. The total exposure time in the telemedicine group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional group (4.7 minutes vs 8.9 minutes, P<.001), whereas the total evaluation time in the telemedicine group was significantly longer than that in the conventional group (12.2 minutes vs 8.9 minutes, P<.001). After controlling for potential confounders, the total exposure time in the telemedicine group was 4.6 minutes shorter than that in the conventional group (95% CI -5.7 to -3.5, P<.001), whereas the total evaluation time in the telemedicine group was 2.8 minutes longer than that in the conventional group (95% CI -1.6 to -4.0, P<.001). The mean scores of the patient questionnaire were high in both groups (4.5/5 to 4.7/5 points). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the double triage and telemedicine protocol in the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic has high potential to improve infection control.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital , Infection Control/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Telemedicine/methods , Triage/methods , Adult , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Feasibility Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Taiwan/epidemiology
14.
J Infect ; 81(3): 435-442, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-598897

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the role of rapid serological tests in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 16 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and 58 COVID-19 negative patients at a medical center in Taiwan over a 3-month period. Serial serum samples were collected and tested for antibody response using four point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) (ALLTEST 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, and Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test). Time-dependent detection sensitivity and timeliness of seroconversion were determined and compared between the four POC rapid tests. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the four tests for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after 3 weeks of symptom onset were 100% and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the rapid tests used for detection of IgM and IgG separately and those used for detection of combined total antibody (mainly IgM/IgG). There was no significant difference between the four POC rapid tests in terms of time required for determining seroconversion of COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia demonstrated shorter seroconversion time than those without pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Though the POC antibody rapid tests based on LFIA showed reliable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, the results of these tests should be interpreted and applied appropriately in the context of antibody dynamic of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 patients complicated with pneumonia exhibited earlier anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response than COVID-19 patients without pneumonia.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Immunoassay/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Point-of-Care Systems , Serologic Tests/methods , Adult , COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Virus Shedding
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL