Ferdiye Taner
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Ferdiye Taner has a total of 9 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Buket Baddal
Near East University
1 shared publication - Cenk Serhan Ozverel
Near East University
1 shared publication - Emrah Güler
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, European University of Lefke, Lefke, North Cyprus, Turkey
1 shared publication - Erdal Sanlidag
Yakin Dogu Universitesi
1 shared publication - Gulten Tuncel
Faculty of Medicine, Experimental Health Sciences Research Centre (DESAM) , 486448 Near East University , Lefkoşa , Cyprus
1 shared publication - Kaya Süer
Near East University
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 11 September 2023
- Published by Marmara University in Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences
- Vol. 13 (3) , 525-529
Comparison of the Rapid Antigen Test to RT-qPCR in Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: A University Experience in Northern Cyprus
Objective: As an alternative to RT-qPCR assays used in the diagnosis SARS-CoV-2, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are available for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of Ag-RDTs as a diagnostic method of detecting SARS-CoV-2 positive cases within a given population. Methods: In first phase of this investigation, 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using Ag-RDTs. For the purposes of this study RT-qPCR was then applied to the same 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples in order to compare the reliability of the two detection methods. In the second phase of this investigation, Ag-RDTs were applied to an additional 75 nasopharyngeal swab samples that were already known to be RT-qPCR positive. Results: In the first phase of this investigation, of the 357 samples screened using Ag-RDTs 14 samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2, in contrast, when RT-qPCR analysis was applied to the same 357 samples no SARS-CoV-2 samples were detected. Therefore, the false antigen positivity was determined to be at 3.9%. In the second phase of this investigation 75 RT-qPCR positive samples were re-evaluated with a rapid antigen test. Twenty-four of the 75 RT-qPCR positive sample were undetected. Conclusion: Solely relying on rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in the community could consequently result in infectious individuals remaining in the population. The impact of false negative rapid test results can be reduced by implementing confirmatory RT-qPCR analysis particularly in symptomatic patients.
- 11 September 2023
- Published by Marmara University in Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences
- Vol. 13 (3) , 525-529
Comparison of the Rapid Antigen Test to RT-qPCR in Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: A University Experience in Northern Cyprus
Objective: As an alternative to RT-qPCR assays used in the diagnosis SARS-CoV-2, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are available for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of Ag-RDTs as a diagnostic method of detecting SARS-CoV-2 positive cases within a given population. Methods: In first phase of this investigation, 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using Ag-RDTs. For the purposes of this study RT-qPCR was then applied to the same 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples in order to compare the reliability of the two detection methods. In the second phase of this investigation, Ag-RDTs were applied to an additional 75 nasopharyngeal swab samples that were already known to be RT-qPCR positive. Results: In the first phase of this investigation, of the 357 samples screened using Ag-RDTs 14 samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2, in contrast, when RT-qPCR analysis was applied to the same 357 samples no SARS-CoV-2 samples were detected. Therefore, the false antigen positivity was determined to be at 3.9%. In the second phase of this investigation 75 RT-qPCR positive samples were re-evaluated with a rapid antigen test. Twenty-four of the 75 RT-qPCR positive sample were undetected. Conclusion: Solely relying on rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in the community could consequently result in infectious individuals remaining in the population. The impact of false negative rapid test results can be reduced by implementing confirmatory RT-qPCR analysis particularly in symptomatic patients.