4.2 Article

Respiratory Tract Viral Infections and Coinfections Identified by Anyplex™ II RV16 Detection Kit in Pediatric Patients at a Riyadh Tertiary Care Hospital

期刊

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 2017, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2017/1928795

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [RGP-VPP-253]
  2. National Guard Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory infections are caused by an array of viruses, and limited information is available about viral coexistence, comparative symptoms, and the burden of illness. This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the etiological agents responsible for respiratory tract infections by Anyplex II RV16 detection kit (RV16, Seegene), involving 2266 pediatric patients with respiratory infections admitted to the Department of Pediatrics at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard, Riyadh, from July 2014 to June 2015. The most frequent respiratory infections were recorded in the 1 to 5 year age group (44.7%). Rhinovirus (32.5%), Adenovirus (16.9%), and Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) B (10.4%) were most common. In single viral infections, Rhinovirus (41.2%), Metapneumovirus (15.3%), and Bocavirus (13.7%) were most frequent. Inmultiple viral infections, Rhinovirus (36.7%), Adenovirus (35.2%), Bocavirus (11.2), RSV B (7.8%), and RSV A (6.7%) were most frequent. No significant difference was observed in clinical presentations; however, rhinorrhea and hypodynamia were significantly associated with viral respiratory infections. Most respiratory viral pathogens peaked during December, January, March, and April. Rhinovirus, Adenovirus, and Bocavirus circulations were detected throughout the year. Winter peaks were recorded for Rhinovirus, RSV B, Adenovirus, and RSV A, whereas the Metapneumovirus, and the Bocavirus peaked in March and April. These findings enhance understanding of viral etiology and distribution to improve respiratory infection management and treatment.

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

4.2
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