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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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