Article
Validation of self-swab for virologic confirmation of influenza virus infections in a community setting.
School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases (impact factor:
6.41).
12/2011;
205(4):631-4.
DOI:10.1093/infdis/jir803
pp.631-4
Source: PubMed
- Citations (1)
-
Cited In (0)
-
Article: Comparison of nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and aspirates for rapid diagnosis of respiratory viruses in children.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The quality of clinical specimens is a crucial determinant for virological diagnosis. We compared the viral diagnostic yield for influenza A and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) from the recently developed nasopharyngeal flocked swabs (NPFS) with nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA) collected in parallel from 196 hospitalized children with acute respiratory infection during the peak period of influenza A and RSV activity in Hong Kong. Specimens were tested by RT-PCR for influenza A and RSV and viral load determined. They were also tested by direct immunofluorescence (DIF) for influenza A and B, RSV, parainfluenza types 1-3 and adenovirus. Both NPA and NPFS had excellent sensitivity (100%) for detecting influenza A by RT-PCR but NPA was slightly more sensitive than NPFS for detecting RSV by both RT-PCR (100% vs. 92.3%) and DIF (87.2% vs. 84.6%) and for detecting influenza A by DIF (90.2% vs. 82.9%). Viral load for influenza A in NPA and NPFS was not significantly different but that for RSV was higher in NPA. NPA remains the optimal specimen for diagnosis of respiratory infections by RT-PCR and DIF. However, collection of NPFS is easier to perform in an out-patient setting, was more acceptable to parents and less likely to generate aerosols than NPA engendering potentially less infection control hazard.Journal of Clinical Virology 06/2008; 42(1):65-9. · 3.97 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
Keywords
176 outpatients
detection
log-linear regression models
measurements
outpatients
quantitative viral loads
self-collected nose
self-swabs
sequential measurement
throat swabs
valid alternative
viral
viral loads
virologic confirmation