-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Factors affecting the success of influenza laboratory diagnosis
R. Kissová, M. Svitok, C. Klement, L. Maďarová
Jazyk angličtina Země Česko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
Digitální knihovna NLK
Zdroj
NLK
Free Medical Journals
od 2004
ProQuest Central
od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 2006-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 1993
- MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- chřipka lidská diagnóza epidemiologie MeSH
- klinické laboratorní techniky metody MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- ochrana veřejného zdraví metody MeSH
- roční období MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- věkové faktory MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Slovenská republika MeSH
Influenza is one of the most common human infectious diseases, and has profound health and economic consequences. The laboratory diag- nosis of influenza virus infections plays an important role in the global surveillance of influenza. Therefore, there is a growing demand for highly sensitive and rapid methods for detecting influenza. The performance of particular diagnostic methods is affected by various factors. In this study, we assess the effects of patients' age and time to diagnosis on the probability of detecting influenza using four diagnostic methods (virus isolation, rapid test, RT-PCR and real-time RT-PCR). We examined 3,546 samples from central and eastern Slovakia during the influenza seasons from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011. In general, the probability of influenza detection significantly decreased with the time from onset of illness to sample collection (T1) as well as with patients' age (AGE). On the contrary, time from sample collection to delivery (T2) did not play a role in the prob- ability of influenza detection. As judged by odds ratios, the virus isolation method was most sensitive to T1, followed by the rapid test and RT-PCR methods. For the effect of AGE, the rapid test and virus isolation methods were more sensitive than PCR-based methods. The effects of T1 and AGE were independent of each other. Laboratories which participate in inifluenza surveillance should use several methods to enable rapid and accurate influenza A and B virus detection.
Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical University in Zvolen Zvolen Slovak Republic
Faculty of Health in Banská Bystrica Slovak Medical University Bratislava Slovak Republic
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc15003159
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20150130083226.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 150122s2014 xr d f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.21101/cejph.a3906 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)25438393
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Kissová, Renáta $7 _AN024429 $u Regional Authority of Public Health, Department of Medical Microbiology, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic
- 245 10
- $a Factors affecting the success of influenza laboratory diagnosis / $c R. Kissová, M. Svitok, C. Klement, L. Maďarová
- 520 9_
- $a Influenza is one of the most common human infectious diseases, and has profound health and economic consequences. The laboratory diag- nosis of influenza virus infections plays an important role in the global surveillance of influenza. Therefore, there is a growing demand for highly sensitive and rapid methods for detecting influenza. The performance of particular diagnostic methods is affected by various factors. In this study, we assess the effects of patients' age and time to diagnosis on the probability of detecting influenza using four diagnostic methods (virus isolation, rapid test, RT-PCR and real-time RT-PCR). We examined 3,546 samples from central and eastern Slovakia during the influenza seasons from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011. In general, the probability of influenza detection significantly decreased with the time from onset of illness to sample collection (T1) as well as with patients' age (AGE). On the contrary, time from sample collection to delivery (T2) did not play a role in the prob- ability of influenza detection. As judged by odds ratios, the virus isolation method was most sensitive to T1, followed by the rapid test and RT-PCR methods. For the effect of AGE, the rapid test and virus isolation methods were more sensitive than PCR-based methods. The effects of T1 and AGE were independent of each other. Laboratories which participate in inifluenza surveillance should use several methods to enable rapid and accurate influenza A and B virus detection.
- 650 _2
- $a věkové faktory $7 D000367
- 650 _2
- $a klinické laboratorní techniky $x metody $7 D019411
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a chřipka lidská $x diagnóza $x epidemiologie $7 D007251
- 650 _2
- $a ochrana veřejného zdraví $x metody $7 D062486
- 650 _2
- $a roční období $7 D012621
- 650 _2
- $a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
- 650 _2
- $a časové faktory $7 D013997
- 651 _2
- $a Slovenská republika $x epidemiologie $7 D018154
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Svitok, Marek $7 _AN081233 $u Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Technical University in Zvolen, Zvolen, Slovak Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Klement, Cyril, $d 1948- $7 jx20091125005 $u Regional Authority of Public Health, Department of Medical Microbiology, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic; Faculty of Health in Banská Bystrica, Slovak Medical University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Maďarová, Lucia $7 xx0088624 $u Regional Authority of Public Health, Department of Medical Microbiology, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001083 $t Central European journal of public health $x 1210-7778 $g Roč. 22, č. 3 (2014), s. 164-169
- 856 41
- $u http://apps.szu.cz/svi/cejph/ $y domovská stránka časopisu
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b B 1829 $c 562 $y 4 $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20150122 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20150126110219 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1061235 $s 885895
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2014 $b 22 $c 3 $d 164-169 $i 1210-7778 $m Central European Journal of Public Health $n Cent. Eur. J. Public Health $x MED00001083
- LZP __
- $b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20150122