Therma Bright Inc V.THRM

Alternate Symbol(s): TBRIF

Healthcare Medical Devices

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

Therma Bright Inc > Camel toe moe and Sona bag holders

<< Previous

Bullboard Posts

Next >>

Comment by TheeRookon Jun 11, 2021 5:11pm

259 Views

Post# 33376508

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

No Doubt.

Codx skewed the results to the upside.

Co-Diagnostics, Inc. Releases COVID-19 Test Performance Data: Consistently Demonstrates 100% Sensitivity and 100% Specificity Across Independent Evaluations

by Co-Diagnostics | May 1, 2020 | News Release

Salt Lake City, Utah – May 1, 2020 – Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CODX) (the Company), a molecular diagnostics company with a unique, patented platform for the development of diagnostic tests, today released COVID-19 test performance data demonstrating 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, the metrics used to define accuracy in molecular diagnostics testing.

The data being released comes from independent evaluations of the performance of the Company’s COVID-19 test in the field. These evaluations were conducted in Mexico by the Mexican Department of Epidemiology (“InDRE”), India, and elsewhere in the US and abroad. Each study concluded 100% concordance for both specificity and sensitivity.

A summary of recent validation data and the data itself can be found here.

Boudi1959 wrote:

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.