Cargando…
Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of self-collected and health care worker (HCW)–collected nasal swabs for detection of influenza viruses and determine the patients' preference for type of collection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled adult patients presenting with influenzalike illness t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Mayo Foundation
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538476/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011 |
_version_ | 1782254948790042624 |
---|---|
author | Dhiman, Neelam Miller, Rita M. Finley, Janet L. Sztajnkrycer, Matthew D. Nestler, David M. Boggust, Andy J. Jenkins, Sarah M. Smith, Thomas F. Wilson, John W. Cockerill, Franklin R. Pritt, Bobbi S. |
author_facet | Dhiman, Neelam Miller, Rita M. Finley, Janet L. Sztajnkrycer, Matthew D. Nestler, David M. Boggust, Andy J. Jenkins, Sarah M. Smith, Thomas F. Wilson, John W. Cockerill, Franklin R. Pritt, Bobbi S. |
author_sort | Dhiman, Neelam |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of self-collected and health care worker (HCW)–collected nasal swabs for detection of influenza viruses and determine the patients' preference for type of collection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled adult patients presenting with influenzalike illness to the Emergency Department at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from January 28, 2011, through April 30, 2011. Patients self-collected a midturbinate nasal flocked swab from their right nostril following written instructions. A second swab was then collected by an HCW from the left nostril. Swabs were tested for influenza A and B viruses by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, and percent concordance between collection methods was determined. RESULTS: Of the 72 paired specimens analyzed, 25 were positive for influenza A or B RNA by at least one of the collection methods (34.7% positivity rate). When the 14 patients who had prior health care training were excluded, the qualitative agreement between collection methods was 94.8% (55 of 58). Two of the 58 specimens (3.4%) from patients without health care training were positive only by HCW collection, and 1 of 58 (1.7%) was positive only by patient self-collection. A total of 53.4% of patients (31 of 58) preferred the self-collection method over the HCW collection, and 25.9% (15 of 58) had no preference. CONCLUSION: Self-collected midturbinate nasal swabs provide a reliable alternative to HCW collection for influenza A and B virus real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3538476 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Mayo Foundation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35384762013-01-11 Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing Dhiman, Neelam Miller, Rita M. Finley, Janet L. Sztajnkrycer, Matthew D. Nestler, David M. Boggust, Andy J. Jenkins, Sarah M. Smith, Thomas F. Wilson, John W. Cockerill, Franklin R. Pritt, Bobbi S. Mayo Clin Proc Original Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of self-collected and health care worker (HCW)–collected nasal swabs for detection of influenza viruses and determine the patients' preference for type of collection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled adult patients presenting with influenzalike illness to the Emergency Department at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from January 28, 2011, through April 30, 2011. Patients self-collected a midturbinate nasal flocked swab from their right nostril following written instructions. A second swab was then collected by an HCW from the left nostril. Swabs were tested for influenza A and B viruses by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, and percent concordance between collection methods was determined. RESULTS: Of the 72 paired specimens analyzed, 25 were positive for influenza A or B RNA by at least one of the collection methods (34.7% positivity rate). When the 14 patients who had prior health care training were excluded, the qualitative agreement between collection methods was 94.8% (55 of 58). Two of the 58 specimens (3.4%) from patients without health care training were positive only by HCW collection, and 1 of 58 (1.7%) was positive only by patient self-collection. A total of 53.4% of patients (31 of 58) preferred the self-collection method over the HCW collection, and 25.9% (15 of 58) had no preference. CONCLUSION: Self-collected midturbinate nasal swabs provide a reliable alternative to HCW collection for influenza A and B virus real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Mayo Foundation 2012-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3538476/ /pubmed/22551906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011 Text en © 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Dhiman, Neelam Miller, Rita M. Finley, Janet L. Sztajnkrycer, Matthew D. Nestler, David M. Boggust, Andy J. Jenkins, Sarah M. Smith, Thomas F. Wilson, John W. Cockerill, Franklin R. Pritt, Bobbi S. Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing |
title | Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing |
title_full | Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing |
title_fullStr | Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing |
title_full_unstemmed | Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing |
title_short | Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing |
title_sort | effectiveness of patient-collected swabs for influenza testing |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538476/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dhimanneelam effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT millerritam effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT finleyjanetl effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT sztajnkrycermatthewd effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT nestlerdavidm effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT boggustandyj effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT jenkinssarahm effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT smiththomasf effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT wilsonjohnw effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT cockerillfranklinr effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting AT prittbobbis effectivenessofpatientcollectedswabsforinfluenzatesting |