Effectiveness of patient-collected swabs for influenza testing

Neelam Dhiman, Rita M. Miller, Janet L. Finley, Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer, David M. Nestler, Andy J. Boggust, Sarah M. Jenkins, Thomas F. Smith, John W. Wilson, Franklin R. Cockerill, Bobbi S. Pritt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)548-554
Number of pages7
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume87
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Human Influenza
Delivery of Health Care
Nose
Influenza B virus
Influenza A virus
Reverse Transcription
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Patient Preference
Self Care
Orthomyxoviridae
Hospital Emergency Service
RNA

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Dhiman, N., Miller, R. M., Finley, J. L., Sztajnkrycer, M. D., Nestler, D. M., Boggust, A. J., ... Pritt, B. S. (2012). Effectiveness of patient-collected swabs for influenza testing. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 87(6), 548-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011

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.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 87, No. 6, 06.2012, p. 548-554.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dhiman, N, Miller, RM, Finley, JL, Sztajnkrycer, MD, Nestler, DM, Boggust, AJ, Jenkins, SM, Smith, TF, Wilson, JW, Cockerill, FR & Pritt, BS 2012, 'Effectiveness of patient-collected swabs for influenza testing', Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 548-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011
Dhiman N, Miller RM, Finley JL, Sztajnkrycer MD, Nestler DM, Boggust AJ et al. Effectiveness of patient-collected swabs for influenza testing. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2012 Jun;87(6):548-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011
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. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2012 ; Vol. 87, No. 6. pp. 548-554.
@article{0072e0a52c164e9693fcf275ce560b30,
title = "Effectiveness of patient-collected swabs for influenza testing",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Neelam Dhiman and Miller, {Rita M.} and Finley, {Janet L.} and Sztajnkrycer, {Matthew D.} and Nestler, {David M.} and Boggust, {Andy J.} and Jenkins, {Sarah M.} and Smith, {Thomas F.} and Wilson, {John W.} and Cockerill, {Franklin R.} and Pritt, {Bobbi S.}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "87",
pages = "548--554",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "6",

}

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.

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

VL - 87

SP - 548

EP - 554

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 6

ER -