Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#169,105
#169,105
govols24 said:
The university also needs to find a lab that uses stricter thresholds for what’s considered a positive test or get the lb they are using to change their threshold. The thresholds being used in other countries is much stricter than what’s used in the US. 90% of the positive PCR tests in the US are not active infections.
Click to expand...
Can you please elaborate? I don't know what you mean by stricter threshold. Is that the number of microorganisms?
 
#169,106
#169,106
sutro said:
We've had good luck at my hospital with cepheid. We were one of their initial rollout sites, as we're just a few miles away. All of the true PCR-based tests should be in the same ballpark in terms of degree of accuracy - Cepheid requires at least 250 viral particles per mL for detection, which is quite sensitive compared to the other PCR-based tests (most are in the 500-2000 copies range of sensitivity). Turnaround in real life has been on the order of 90 minutes in our ED. It also has the advantage of using two different viral targets for PCR, which should help with sensitivity. The reason that you don't see these being rolled out with football teams, etc is the need for CLIA certification. In essence, it's a real deal lab test, and requires a lab and personnel that are CLIA certified (i.e, they can demonstrate to regulatory agencies that they know what they are doing, can validate their results and keep appropriate records). The cost of the machine isn't prohibitive, but the cost of the underpinnings for being able to actually use it in an independent setting may well be.
Click to expand...
you'd think universities with academic medical centers could pull this off, as those hospitals would have multiple internal CLIA certified labs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol and VolsDoc81TX
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top