TY - JOUR
T1 - Effectiveness of patient-collected swabs for influenza testing
AU - Dhiman, Neelam
AU - Miller, Rita M.
AU - Finley, Janet L.
AU - Sztajnkrycer, Matthew D.
AU - Nestler, David M.
AU - Boggust, Andy J.
AU - Jenkins, Sarah M.
AU - Smith, Thomas F.
AU - Wilson, John W.
AU - Cockerill, Franklin R.
AU - Pritt, Bobbi S.
N1 - Funding Information:
Grant Support: This study was supported by the Ann and Leo Markin Named Professorship fund (F.R.C.).
PY - 2012/6
Y1 - 2012/6
N2 - 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 theHCWcollection, 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.
AB - 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 theHCWcollection, 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863432337&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863432337&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011
DO - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011
M3 - Article
C2 - 22551906
AN - SCOPUS:84863432337
SN - 0025-6196
VL - 87
SP - 548
EP - 554
JO - Mayo Clinic proceedings
JF - Mayo Clinic proceedings
IS - 6
ER -