真实世界的实践与临床研究之间的差异：流感中口咽和鼻咽取样数据的比较。

IF 4.7 3区医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Journal of Infection and Public Health Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jiph.2024.102581

Tongyan Zhang , Yajun Du , Yanyan Ren , Hui Chen , Xuehong Wen , Xiumei Gao

{"title":"真实世界的实践与临床研究之间的差异：流感中口咽和鼻咽取样数据的比较。","authors":"Tongyan Zhang , Yajun Du , Yanyan Ren , Hui Chen , Xuehong Wen , Xiumei Gao","doi":"10.1016/j.jiph.2024.102581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Oropharyngeal (OP) sampling is one of the most commonly used methods for respiratory sampling, but its positivity rate in real practice compared with that of nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling is not fully known. The differences between OP and NP in practice and between practice and the literature were compared. In total, 2323 positive results from 6708 patients were recorded in the laboratory test system, and 15,021 positive results from 31,333 patients were recorded in the national report. The positivity rate changed from 2.3 % to 38.11 % after the sampling method was changed from OP to NP in the same setting. The difference between OP and NP (calculated as (NP-OP)/NP) varies from −7.73–28.57 % in the literature and from 61.35–94.59 % in practice. Real-world practice is complicated and thus different from strictly quality-controlled studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16087,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection and Public Health","volume":"17 12","pages":"Article 102581"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Difference between real world practice and clinical research: A comparison of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal sampling data in influenza\",\"authors\":\"Tongyan Zhang , Yajun Du , Yanyan Ren , Hui Chen , Xuehong Wen , Xiumei Gao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jiph.2024.102581\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Oropharyngeal (OP) sampling is one of the most commonly used methods for respiratory sampling, but its positivity rate in real practice compared with that of nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling is not fully known. The differences between OP and NP in practice and between practice and the literature were compared. In total, 2323 positive results from 6708 patients were recorded in the laboratory test system, and 15,021 positive results from 31,333 patients were recorded in the national report. The positivity rate changed from 2.3 % to 38.11 % after the sampling method was changed from OP to NP in the same setting. The difference between OP and NP (calculated as (NP-OP)/NP) varies from −7.73–28.57 % in the literature and from 61.35–94.59 % in practice. Real-world practice is complicated and thus different from strictly quality-controlled studies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16087,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Infection and Public Health\",\"volume\":\"17 12\",\"pages\":\"Article 102581\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Infection and Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034124003150\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034124003150","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

口咽（OP）取样是呼吸道取样最常用的方法之一，但与鼻咽（NP）取样相比，口咽取样在实际操作中的阳性率尚不完全清楚。我们比较了实际操作中 OP 和 NP 的差异，以及实际操作和文献资料之间的差异。实验室检测系统共记录了 6708 名患者的 2323 项阳性结果，国家报告中记录了 31333 名患者的 15021 项阳性结果。在同一环境中，采样方法从 OP 改为 NP 后，阳性率从 2.3% 变为 38.11%。在文献中，OP 和 NP 之间的差异（计算公式为 (NP-OP)/NP）从-7.73%-28.57%不等，而在实践中则从 61.35%-94.59%不等。现实世界的实践是复杂的，因此不同于严格的质量控制研究。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Difference between real world practice and clinical research: A comparison of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal sampling data in influenza

Oropharyngeal (OP) sampling is one of the most commonly used methods for respiratory sampling, but its positivity rate in real practice compared with that of nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling is not fully known. The differences between OP and NP in practice and between practice and the literature were compared. In total, 2323 positive results from 6708 patients were recorded in the laboratory test system, and 15,021 positive results from 31,333 patients were recorded in the national report. The positivity rate changed from 2.3 % to 38.11 % after the sampling method was changed from OP to NP in the same setting. The difference between OP and NP (calculated as (NP-OP)/NP) varies from −7.73–28.57 % in the literature and from 61.35–94.59 % in practice. Real-world practice is complicated and thus different from strictly quality-controlled studies.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Infection and Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -INFECTIOUS DISEASES

CiteScore

13.10

自引率

1.50%

发文量

203

审稿时长

96 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Infection and Public Health, first official journal of the Saudi Arabian Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences and the Saudi Association for Public Health, aims to be the foremost scientific, peer-reviewed journal encompassing infection prevention and control, microbiology, infectious diseases, public health and the application of healthcare epidemiology to the evaluation of health outcomes. The point of view of the journal is that infection and public health are closely intertwined and that advances in one area will have positive consequences on the other. The journal will be useful to all health professionals who are partners in the management of patients with communicable diseases, keeping them up to date. The journal is proud to have an international and diverse editorial board that will assist and facilitate the publication of articles that reflect a global view on infection control and public health, as well as emphasizing our focus on supporting the needs of public health practitioners. It is our aim to improve healthcare by reducing risk of infection and related adverse outcomes by critical review, selection, and dissemination of new and relevant information in the field of infection control, public health and infectious diseases in all healthcare settings and the community.