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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Infection and Public Health
Published
2024-10-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2024.102581
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Influenza Virus Research Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.77
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Xiumei Gao, Yajun Du, Yanyan Ren, X. Y. Wen et al.
2 citations
Journal of Infection and Public Health
Influenza Virus Research Studies
0.77
article

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

Xiumei Gao, Yajun Du, Yanyan Ren, X. Y. Wen, Hui Chen, Tongyan Zhang
article en
2 citations

Abstract

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.

Journal of Infection and Public HealthVol. 17(12)
Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN), TEDA International Cardiovascular Hospital (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 25%
Influenza Virus Research Studies
0.77
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Difference between real world practice and clinical research: A comparison of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal sampling data in influenza — Xiumei Gao, Yajun Du, et al. · Journal of Infection and Public Health (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS