• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clinical predictors for laboratory-confirmed influenza infections: exploring case definitions for influenza-like illness

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Mar;36(3):241-8. doi: 10.1017/ice.2014.64.
[h=1]Clinical predictors for laboratory-confirmed influenza infections: exploring case definitions for influenza-like illness.[/h] Shah SC[SUP]1[/SUP], Rumoro DP[SUP]1[/SUP], Hallock MM[SUP]1[/SUP], Trenholme GM[SUP]2[/SUP], Gibbs GS[SUP]1[/SUP], Silva JC[SUP]1[/SUP], Waddell MJ[SUP]3[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] OBJECTIVE To identify clinical signs and symptoms (ie, "terms") that accurately predict laboratory-confirmed influenza cases and thereafter generate and evaluate various influenza-like illness (ILI) case definitions for detecting influenza. A secondary objective explored whether surveillance of data beyond the chief complaint improves the accuracy of predicting influenza. DESIGN Retrospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING Large urban academic medical center hospital. PARTICIPANTS A total of 1,581 emergency department (ED) patients who received a nasopharyngeal swab followed by rRT-PCR testing between August 30, 2009, and January 2, 2010, and between November 28, 2010, and March 26, 2011. METHODS An electronic surveillance system (GUARDIAN) scanned the entire electronic medical record (EMR) and identified cases containing 29 clinical terms relevant to influenza. Analyses were conducted using logistic regressions, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS The best predictive model for identifying influenza for all ages consisted of cough (DOR=5.87), fever (DOR=4.49), rhinorrhea (DOR=1.98), and myalgias (DOR=1.44). The 3 best case definitions that included combinations of some or all of these 4 symptoms had comparable performance (ie, sensitivity=89%-92% and specificity=38%-44%). For children <5 years of age, the addition of rhinorrhea to the fever and cough case definition achieved a better balance between sensitivity (85%) and specificity (47%). For the fever and cough ILI case definition, using the entire EMR, GUARDIAN identified 37.1% more influenza cases than it did using only the chief complaint data. CONCLUSIONS A simplified case definition of fever and cough may be suitable for implementation for all ages, while inclusion of rhinorrhea may further improve influenza detection for the 0-4-year-old age group. Finally, ILI surveillance based on the entire EMR is recommended. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;00(0): 1-8.


PMID: 25695163 [PubMed - in process]
 
Back
Top Bottom