During the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in Scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as H1N1/2009?
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During the April-July 2009 outbreak of H1N1/2009 in scotland the West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre (WoSSVC) in Glasgow tested > 16 000 clinical samples for H1N1/2009. Most were from patients clinically diagnosed with H1N...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2011-07-01
|
Series: | BMC Infectious Diseases |
Online Access: | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/11/192 |
id |
doaj-3d5837610d784b149eaf0008cfc67f6a |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-3d5837610d784b149eaf0008cfc67f6a2020-11-25T03:11:50ZengBMCBMC Infectious Diseases1471-23342011-07-0111119210.1186/1471-2334-11-192During the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in Scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as H1N1/2009?Carman William FGunson Rory N<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During the April-July 2009 outbreak of H1N1/2009 in scotland the West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre (WoSSVC) in Glasgow tested > 16 000 clinical samples for H1N1/2009. Most were from patients clinically diagnosed with H1N1/2009. Out of these, 9% were positive. This study sought to determine what respiratory pathogens were misdiagnosed as cases of H1N1/2009 during this time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined the results from 3247 samples which were sent to the laboratory during April-July 2009. All were from patients clinically diagnosed as having H1N1/2009 (based on accepted criteria) and all were given a full respiratory screen using real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR) assays.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, respiratory pathogens were detected in 27.9% (95% confidence interval, 26.3-29.5%) of the samples submitted. Numerous pathogens were detected, the most common of which were rhinovirus (8.9% (95% confidence interval, 7.9-9.9%)), parainfluenza 1 (1.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.4%)) and 3 (4.1% (95% confidence interval, 3.3-4.9%)), and adenovirus ((3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.2%)).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study highlights the problems of using a clinical algorithm to detect H1N1/2009. Clinicians frequently misdiagnosed common respiratory pathogens as H1N1/2009 during the spring/summer outbreak in Scotland. Many undesirable consequences would have resulted, relating to treatment, infection control, and public health surveillance.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/11/192 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Carman William F Gunson Rory N |
spellingShingle |
Carman William F Gunson Rory N During the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in Scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as H1N1/2009? BMC Infectious Diseases |
author_facet |
Carman William F Gunson Rory N |
author_sort |
Carman William F |
title |
During the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in Scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as H1N1/2009? |
title_short |
During the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in Scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as H1N1/2009? |
title_full |
During the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in Scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as H1N1/2009? |
title_fullStr |
During the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in Scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as H1N1/2009? |
title_full_unstemmed |
During the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in Scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as H1N1/2009? |
title_sort |
during the summer 2009 outbreak of "swine flu" in scotland what respiratory pathogens were diagnosed as h1n1/2009? |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Infectious Diseases |
issn |
1471-2334 |
publishDate |
2011-07-01 |
description |
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During the April-July 2009 outbreak of H1N1/2009 in scotland the West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre (WoSSVC) in Glasgow tested > 16 000 clinical samples for H1N1/2009. Most were from patients clinically diagnosed with H1N1/2009. Out of these, 9% were positive. This study sought to determine what respiratory pathogens were misdiagnosed as cases of H1N1/2009 during this time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined the results from 3247 samples which were sent to the laboratory during April-July 2009. All were from patients clinically diagnosed as having H1N1/2009 (based on accepted criteria) and all were given a full respiratory screen using real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR) assays.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, respiratory pathogens were detected in 27.9% (95% confidence interval, 26.3-29.5%) of the samples submitted. Numerous pathogens were detected, the most common of which were rhinovirus (8.9% (95% confidence interval, 7.9-9.9%)), parainfluenza 1 (1.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.4%)) and 3 (4.1% (95% confidence interval, 3.3-4.9%)), and adenovirus ((3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.2%)).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study highlights the problems of using a clinical algorithm to detect H1N1/2009. Clinicians frequently misdiagnosed common respiratory pathogens as H1N1/2009 during the spring/summer outbreak in Scotland. Many undesirable consequences would have resulted, relating to treatment, infection control, and public health surveillance.</p> |
url |
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/11/192 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT carmanwilliamf duringthesummer2009outbreakofswinefluinscotlandwhatrespiratorypathogenswerediagnosedash1n12009 AT gunsonroryn duringthesummer2009outbreakofswinefluinscotlandwhatrespiratorypathogenswerediagnosedash1n12009 |
_version_ |
1724652700630515712 |