• J. Clin. Virol. · May 2008

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and aspirates for rapid diagnosis of respiratory viruses in children.

    • K H Chan, J S M Peiris, W Lim, J M Nicholls, and S S Chiu.
    • Department of Microbiology, The University of Hong Kong and Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China.
    • J. Clin. Virol. 2008 May 1; 42 (1): 65-9.

    BackgroundThe quality of clinical specimens is a crucial determinant for virological diagnosis.ObjectivesWe 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.ResultsBoth 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.ConclusionNPA 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.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…