• 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.

Experience of a screening centre for influenza A/H1N1: the first 50 days

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Emerg Med J. 2010 Oct 13. [Epub ahead of print]
Experience of a screening centre for influenza A/H1N1: the first 50 days.

Chan WL, Goh HK, Vasu A, Lim BL, Seow E.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Abstract

Background The authors' emergency department (ED) served as Singapore's screening centre for influenza H1N1 cases. The aims of the study were to describe their screening experience and to compare clinical and laboratory features of H1N1 versus seasonal flu cases. Methodology The authors We conducted a prospective observational study on consecutive patients aged 16&emsp14;years and above presenting to a busy, urban ED for H1N1 screening over 50&emsp14;days. Clinical, laboratory, radiological and PCR data were collected from the hospital electronic databases. Primary outcomes were proportions of confirmed H1N1 cases and their distribution of clinical, laboratory and radiological features. Secondary outcomes were comparison of clinical and laboratory features of H1N1 versus seasonal flu cases. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and univariate analysis was used to compare factors between the two groups. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results 1205 patients were screened. 31 (2.6%) and 133 (11%) of them had H1N1 and seasonal flu infections, respectively. The two groups had similar symptoms. There were six clinical and two laboratory features with statistically significant differences between H1N1 and seasonal flu cases. Clinical factors were travel or contact history, median age, respiratory rate, diastolic blood pressure and length of hospital stay. Laboratory factors were median platelet and lymphocyte counts. Conclusions The authors report their experience as the nation's H1N1 screening centre. They identified factors that were different between H1N1 and seasonal flu cases. Future research is needed to elucidate if and how this information can be used as a screening tool for H1N1.

PMID: 20943834 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20943834
 
Back
Top Bottom