3.8 Article

Clinical features of Mycoplasma pneumonia in comparison with viral pneumoina in children: A multicenter, cross-sectional study

期刊

ALLERGY ASTHMA & RESPIRATORY DISEASE
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 155-160

出版社

KOREAN ACAD ASTHMA ALLERGY & CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
DOI: 10.4168/aard.2018.6.3.155

关键词

Mycoplasma pneumonia; Viral pneumonia; Community acquired pneumonia; Child

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare clinical features between Mycoplasma pneumonia and viral pneumonia. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 428 patients requiring hospitalization among children younger than 18 years of age in 5 hospitals in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do. There were 131 patients with M. pneumonia and virus coinfection, 167 patients with M. pneumonia without virus coinfection, and 130 patients with viral pneumonia. All subjects had radiographic evidence of pneumonia with specimens available for both M. pneumonia and viral testing. Virus was identified using the polymerase chain reaction assay in a nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab. M. pneumoniae pneumonia was diagnosed serologically. Results: Human rhinovirus was detected in 60.3% (79 of 131) of children with M. pneumonia accompanied by virus coinfection. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was detected in 38.2% (50 of 130) of children with viral pneumonia. The mean age was significantly lower in the viral pneumonia group than in the M. pneumonia group with and without virus coinfection. The sex distribution did not differ significantly among the 3 study groups. The procalcitonin level was higher in viral pneumonia and erythrocyte sedimentation rate level was higher in the M. pneumonia group although no significant difference was found in C-reactive protein level between the M. pneumonia and viral pneumonia groups. Conclusion: Clinical features and inflammatory markers between M. pneumonia and viral pneumonia may be useful for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据