• 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.

Does influenza vaccination status change physician ordering patterns for respiratory viral panels? Inspection for selection bias

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1514226. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Does influenza vaccination status change physician ordering patterns for respiratory viral panels? Inspection for selection bias.[/h] Balasubramani GK[SUP]1[/SUP], Saul S[SUP]2[/SUP], Nowalk MP[SUP]2[/SUP], Middleton DB[SUP]2[/SUP], Ferdinands JM[SUP]3[/SUP], Zimmerman RK[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]PURPOSE:[/h] Hospitalized patients with an acute respiratory illness (ARI) were compared to determine if demographic characteristics, timing or influenza vaccination biased who received clinical respiratory viral panel (RVP) testing.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] 171 enrollees in an influenza vaccine effectiveness study and a sample of non-enrollees (N = 1029) admitted to a community hospital with ARI during December 2015 through April 2016 comprised the study sample. Those who received clinical RVP testing (n = 292) were compared to those who did not by age, sex, influenza vaccination status, and period (pre-peak influenza season vs. peak/post peak influenza season), using Chi square- and t-tests, and logistic regression.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Mean age of participants was 70 years, 58% was female and 45% had been vaccinated against influenza in the 2015-2016 season. Those with clinical RVP testing were significantly younger (67 years) than those without RVP (71 years; P < 0.001), but did not differ with respect to sex or vaccination status. The odds of clinical RVP testing were significantly (P = 0.004) related to younger age (< 65 years) (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.14-2.00) and to later period (peak/post peak influenza season; OR = 2.64; 95% CI = 1.84-3.79) but were unrelated to influenza vaccination status or the interaction of time and vaccination status.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] RVP testing was significantly higher among younger hospitalized patients with an ARI and during the peak and post peak influenza periods than earlier in the season, but influenza vaccination status was not a significant factor. Studies that enroll based on clinical RVP testing should account for potential differences by age.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Acute respiratory infection; influenza vaccination; respiratory viral panels

PMID: 30130438 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1514226
 
Back
Top Bottom