Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Therma Bright Inc V.THRM

Alternate Symbol(s):  TBRIF

Therma Bright Inc. is a Canada-based company, which is a developer and partner in a range of diagnostic and medical device technologies. It focuses on providing consumers and medical professionals with solutions that address medical and healthcare challenges. It is involved in developing, acquiring, manufacturing, and marketing proprietary healthcare and medical devices for the consumer and institutional marketplace. Its product offerings include Covid-19 diagnostic test product line, such as AcuVid COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Saliva Test and AcuVid COVID-19 Rapid Antibody Test; Sores & Bite Inflammation Therapy product line, such as InterceptCS Cold Sore Prevention System and TherOZap, and Muscle Pain & Blood Circulation Health Therapy product line, such as Venowave, which is a circulation booster designed to improve circulation in the lower extremities. Its products include Benepod, Inretio, AI4LYF, Invixa and Instatin, and others.


TSXV:THRM - Post by User

Comment by Boudi1959on Jun 11, 2021 5:05pm
170 Views
Post# 33375526

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Camel toe moe and Sona bag holders

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Camel toe moe and Sona bag holders

Results:

Overall, 37 studies were included, comprising 7,169 participants with 7,332 paired saliva samples and nasopharyngeal swabs. A total of 2,327 (32%) were positive on either nasopharyngeal swab or saliva. The sensitivity for salivary testing was overall 3.4% lower (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9% to +3.1%) compared to the nasopharyngeal swab. The pooled sensitivity for saliva testing was 86.9% (95% CI, 82.3%-90.4%). There were no major differences in stratified analyses, with differences in sensitivity between salivary and nasopharyngeal testing ranging between -9.3% to +1.5%. Heterogeneity was high in stratified analyses. CIs for differences between salivary and nasopharyngeal testing were very wide for stratified analyses. Nasopharyngeal testing would identify 79 more persons with SARS-CoV-2 per 100,000 persons sampled. Collection of specimens by saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swab was estimated to save $636,105 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $467,427 to $831,770) per 100,000 persons sampled.

Conclusions:

Sample collection through saliva or nasopharyngeal swabbing does not differ significantly in sensitivity. Salivary collection, however, is much less costly.

 
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>