% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Lbke:910348,
      author       = {Lübke, Nadine and Repges, Katharina and Menne, Christopher
                      and Walker, Andreas and Jensen, Björn-Erik O. and Freise,
                      Noemi F. and Gliga, Smaranda and Eickhoff, Simon and Bosse,
                      Hans Martin and Adams, Ortwin and Timm, Jörg},
      title        = {{Q}uantitative analysis of different respiratory specimens
                      on two automated test systems for detection of
                      {SARS}-{C}o{V}-2 {RNA}},
      journal      = {Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease},
      volume       = {105},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {0732-8893},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2022-03767},
      pages        = {115800 -},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {Molecular testing of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is essential during the
                      pandemic. Here, we compared the results of different
                      respiratory specimens including anterior nasal swabs,
                      pharyngeal swabs, saliva swabs, and gargle lavage samples to
                      nasopharyngeal swabs on two automated SARS-CoV-2 test
                      systems. Samples were collected and tested simultaneously
                      from a total of 36 hospitalized symptomatic COVID-19
                      patients. Detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 was
                      performed on cobas®6800 (Roche) and NeuMoDx™ (Qiagen)
                      systems. Both assays showed reliable detection and
                      quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, with nasopharyngeal swabs
                      showing the highest sensitivity. SARS-CoV-2 RNA
                      concentrations in other respiratory specimens were lower
                      (mean 2.5 log10 copies/ml) or even undetectable in up to
                      $20\%.$ These data clearly indicate that not all respiratory
                      materials are equally suitable for the management of
                      hospitalized patients, especially, in the late phase of
                      COVID-19, when the viral phase subsides and inflammation
                      becomes the predominant factor, making detection of even
                      lower viral loads increasingly important.},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {5253 - Neuroimaging (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {36252283},
      UT           = {WOS:000878990200001},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115800},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/910348},
}