Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers

Discover Pediatric Collections on COVID-19 and Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health

American Academy of Pediatrics
Article

Performance of a Rapid Influenza Test in Children During the H1N1 2009 Influenza A Outbreak

Andrea T. Cruz, Gail J. Demmler-Harrison, A. Chantal Caviness, Gregory J. Buffone and Paula A. Revell
Pediatrics March 2010, 125 (3) e645-e650; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-3060
Andrea T. Cruz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gail J. Demmler-Harrison
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Chantal Caviness
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory J. Buffone
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paula A. Revell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT) in detecting H1N1 2009 influenza A virus in respiratory samples from pediatric patients in comparison to that of real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and viral culture.

Methodology. This was a cross-sectional diagnostic-accuracy study conducted at a tertiary care children's hospital. Patients for whom the RIDT (BinaxNOW [Binax, Inc, Portland, ME]), viral culture, and rRT-PCR results were known were included. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated.

RESULTS: A total of 3030 specimens had RIDT results paired with both rRT-PCR and viral culture results. With rRT-PCR as the reference, overall test sensitivity was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.3%–46.3%) and specificity was 98.6% (95% CI: 98.1%–99%). Positive and negative LRs were 32.9 (95% CI: 22.9–45.4) and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.54–0.58), respectively. RIDT sensitivity was significantly higher in young infants and children younger than 2 years than in older children. Using viral culture as the reference standard, RIDT sensitivity was 55.5% (95% CI: 51.9%–95.6%) and specificity was 95.6% (95% CI: 95%–96.1%). The positive and negative LRs were 12.6 and 0.47, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The RIDT had relatively poor sensitivity but excellent specificity in this consecutive series of respiratory specimens obtained from pediatric patients. Although a positive RIDT result was highly accurate in predicting infection with influenza type A H1N1 2009 in children, a negative RIDT result did not preclude a child having H1N1. Therefore, for children at high risk with influenza-like illnesses during high-prevalence periods of influenza, empiric initiation of antiviral therapy should be considered for patients with a negative RIDT result.

  • H1N1 influenza
  • rapid viral testing
  • children

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT:

Sensitivities of RIDTs have varied widely for the diagnosis of seasonal influenza. Few pediatric-specific data are available on RIDT performance for H1N1 2009 influenza A.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest series reported to date of a comparison of RIDT performance to 2 reference standards, viral culture and rRT-PCR, for the detection of influenza A H1N1 2009 in respiratory specimens from pediatric patients.

The recent 2009 H1N1 influenza A pandemic1,–,3 reinforced the importance of diagnosing circulating influenza strains in a timely and accurate manner, important because morbidity and mortality have the potential to be ameliorated by judicious use of antiviral medications.4,5 The traditional reference standard for the diagnosis of influenza A virus infection has been viral culture. However, the current reference standard for the diagnosis of influenza A, including H1N1 2009, is real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR).

Commercially available rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) offer the advantages of low cost, ease of use, and rapid turnaround time.6 The RIDTs also have shown consistently high specificity for both seasonal (92%–100%) and H1N1 2009 (86%–100%) influenza A virus detection.6,–,15 However, the sensitivity of these assays has varied considerably for both seasonal influenza viruses (49%–95%)6,–,10 and H1N1 2009 influenza A (10%–53%).11,–,15 Furthermore, few data exist on the performance of RIDTs for detection of influenza A H1N1 2009 in children, with sensitivities ranging from 42% to 74%,16,17 and few data exist on the performance of these assays in clinical settings. We present here the results of a series of 3030 pediatric respiratory tract specimens in which RIDT, viral culture, and rRT-PCR were performed concurrently during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest series reported to date of a comparison of RIDT performance to 2 reference standards, viral culture and rRT-PCR, for the detection of influenza A H1N1 2009 in respiratory specimens from pediatric patients.

METHODS

Electronic records of respiratory specimen virologic tests were obtained from Texas Children's Hospital secondary data sources between May 21, 2009, and September 20, 2009. During the study period all upper and lower respiratory tract specimens underwent testing by RIDT, viral culture, and rRT-PCR for influenza A with subtyping for H1N1 2009 and seasonal H1 and H3 influenza A. Samples for which all 3 assays were not performed were excluded from this study.

The performance of a commercially available RIDT, BinaxNOW influenza A and B test (Binax, Inc, Portland, ME), was evaluated by comparing it to the reference standards of rRT-PCR and viral culture. The Binax RIDT is an in vitro immunochromatographic assay that detects influenza nucleoprotein antigens. The RIDT was performed in a laboratory by trained virology technicians according to manufacturer instructions immediately after receipt of the specimen in the laboratory and within 2 hours of specimen collection from the patient. Quality-control measures included using internal-kit positive and negative controls as well as external laboratory controls for each test kit run within a 24-hour period.

After the RIDT was performed, all respiratory specimens were immediately split into 2 aliquots and sent for both rRT-PCR and viral culture. Specimens were inoculated onto 3 cell lines (human foreskin fibroblasts, human lung carcinoma [A549], and rhesus monkey kidney cell culture monolayers) to allow detection of influenza viruses types A and B, adenovirus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex virus, parainfluenza viruses, picornaviruses, and respiratory syncytial virus. Cell cultures were examined daily for 14 days under light microscopy. Viruses were identified by the presence of cytopathic effect or temperature-dependent hemadsorption phenomena by using guinea pig red blood cell suspension (performed on days 2, 5, and 14 of incubation). Virus identification was confirmed by using an immunofluorescence assay with commercially available virus-specific monoclonal antibodies.

A 1-step reverse-transcription, multiplex real-time PCR assay using 2 sets of TaqMan hydrolysis primers and probes was developed and validated in the Molecular Microbiology Laboratory at Texas Children's Hospital. The primer and probe set specific to the matrix gene (M) detects all subtypes of human influenza A. The primer and probe set specific to the hemagglutinin gene (swHA) of H1N1 2009 influenza A was used to subtype influenza A (2009 H1N1). For samples in which the matrix gene was detected and the swHA was not detected, further molecular subtyping was performed by using primers and probes specific to the hemagglutinin genes for seasonal H1 and H3 influenza. In brief, the primer and probe designs for H1N1 2009 influenza A were based on the following sequences: A/Texas/04/2009, A/Texas/05/2009, A/ California/4/2009, A/California/5/2009, A/California/7/2009, and A/California/9/2009. The H1N1 2009 influenza PCR assay performance was validated by using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reference standards.18 rRT-PCR was performed directly on RNA extracted from the original specimen, not on the viral clinical isolate.

Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) (positive and negative) were estimated for the RIDT by using rRT-PCR and viral culture as the reference standards. SPSS 16 (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis. Institutional review board approval to conduct this study was obtained.

RESULTS

From May 21, 2009, to September 20, 2009, virologic results were recorded for 3102 respiratory specimens from 2686 patients. Seventy-two specimens (2%) were excluded from the analysis: 48 had RIDT only, 1 had rRT-PCR only, 3 RIDT results were indeterminate, 3 rRT-PCR results were indeterminate, 2 were rRT-PCR–positive for seasonal influenza virus, and 15 influenza A isolates were nonsubtypeable. There were 3030 specimens available for analysis: 342 (11.3%) tested positive for influenza A by RIDT, 407 (13.4%) tested positive for influenza A by viral culture, and 689 (22.7%) tested positive for 2009 H1N1 influenza A by rRT-PCR (Table 1). Using rRT-PCR and viral culture as the reference standards, the performance of the RIDT is shown in Tables 2 and 3. Using rRT-PCR as the reference standard, overall sensitivity and specificity were 45% and 98.6%, respectively, and positive and negative LRs were 32.9 and 0.56, respectively. Given a pretest probability of 22.7%, the posttest probability of infection was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87%–93%) with a positive RIDT result and 14% (95% CI: 13%–15%) with a negative RIDT result. There were 10 specimens that tested positive by culture but negative by rRT-PCR, whereas there were 292 specimens that tested negative by culture but positive by rRT-PCR.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Percentage of 2009 H1N1 Influenza A Virus–Positive Specimens by RIDT, Viral Culture, and RT-PCR According to Month, Specimen Source, and Patient Hospital Location

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Performance of RIDT Compared With rRT-PCR for the Diagnosis of 2009 H1N1 Influenza A Virus Infection in Pediatric Patients for 3030 Specimens

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Performance of RIDT Compared With Viral Culture for the Diagnosis of 2009 H1N1 Influenza A Virus Infection in Pediatric Patients for 3030 Specimens

Viral cultures were positive for at least 1 virus in 650 instances (21.5%). The most common virus isolated was influenza A (407 [13.4%]), which accounted for 63% of all positive culture results during the study period. Other viruses isolated included parainfluenza viruses (101 [3.3%]), adenovirus (63 [2.1%]), rhinovirus (37 [1.2%]), enterovirus (17 [0.6%]), cytomegalovirus (16, 0.5%), herpes simplex viruses (5 [0.2%]), and respiratory syncytial virus (4 [0.1%]). The presence of a virus other than influenza A H1N1 2009 in the respiratory sample did not influence performance of the RIDT.

There were 2809 unique patient visits during which specimens were tested (Table 4); median age of the patients was 4 years, and 43.9% were female. RIDT sensitivity compared with rRT-PCR was significantly higher in young infants and children younger than 2 years (sensitivity: 57.6% [95% CI: 51.6%–61.3%]) than in children aged 2 and older (sensitivity: 43.4% [95% CI: 41.7%–44.5%]). There were 67 unique patient visits for neonates (aged 0–28 days); 2 (2.9%) tested positive for influenza A with the RIDT, 2 (2.9%) tested positive for influenza A with viral culture, and 3 (4.3%) tested positive for 2009 H1N1 influenza A with rRT-PCR. In neonates, the RIDT sensitivity was 66.7% (95% CI: 25.9%–66.7%) and specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 98.1%–100.0%). RIDT sensitivity was significantly lower for patients tested in the inpatient units (excluding the bone marrow transplant units) than any other hospital or outpatient unit.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

Diagnostic Accuracy of RIDT Compared With rRT-PCR for 2009 Novel H1N1 Influenza A Infection in 2809 Unique Patient Visits

DISCUSSION

The RIDT evaluated in this series of respiratory specimens obtained from pediatric patients showed suboptimal sensitivity but excellent specificity for the detection of H1N1 2009 influenza A virus infection. When compared with the performance of RIDTs in previous years for the detection of seasonal influenza A,11,–,15 the sensitivity of the RIDT for H1N1 2009 influenza A virus was lower. These results, in the largest pediatric population yet studied, concur with the results of few existing studies of H1N1 diagnostics in children.16,17 Similar to reports of evaluations of the performance of RIDTs in previous influenza seasons, the highest sensitivity was seen for infants and children younger than 2 years of age, a group also known to be at higher risk of influenza complications.19,20 However, given the risk of concomitant serious bacterial infection, such as occult urinary tract infection21,22 or secondary bacterial pneumonia or bacteremia complicating influenza virus infection,23 a positive influenza RIDT result should not preclude evaluation and treatment for other etiologies of fever in the young infant. Conversely, a negative RIDT result should not preclude initiation of empiric antiviral therapy in children at high risk.

RIDT sensitivity was higher for patients evaluated in the emergency department compared with those in most inpatient units (excluding bone marrow transplant unit), with performance being lowest in critical care unit patients. Viral load in respiratory secretions varies on the basis of where a patient is in the natural history of influenza infection,24 and emergency department patients may have presented early in the clinical course, at a time when they had higher viral loads. In contrast, inpatients may have been screened later into their clinical presentation.

There was no significant difference noted in RIDT performance for specimens obtained via nasal swabs versus nasal washes. Because obtaining a nasal swab requires much less time and technical expertise and produces less potential for aerosol formation, it can be considered a viable alternative to nasal washes for the collection of respiratory specimens for detection of influenza A H1N1 2009 by RIDT, rRT-PCR, or viral culture. Care must be taken to obtain an adequate sample. The RIDT seemed to be more sensitive in lower respiratory tract isolates, but the small sample size precluded statistical evaluation.

Finally, we evaluated RIDT performance by using both rRT-PCR and viral culture as reference standards. Historically, the US Food and Drug Administration has recommended viral culture as the reference standard for evaluation of new RIDT kits, whereas for H1N1 2009 influenza A, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended rRT-PCR as the confirmatory test performed when available.25 When RIDT performance was compared with viral culture, the performance of the RIDT for detection of influenza A H1N1 2009 seemed comparable to detection of seasonal influenza A reported in past studies.6,–,10 rRT-PCR offers several advantages over RIDT, including the ability to simultaneously identify influenza A and subtype the virus, a relatively rapid turnaround time (results are typically available within 24–48 hours), and increased sensitivity of detection. Molecular detection of viral RNA does not depend on viable virions and will amplify genetic material of viruses that have fastidious growth requirements. In addition, multiplex PCR has the ability to detect viral coinfections. However, viral culture offers other advantages: the potential to detect other viral infections for which RIDTs do not exist and targets are not included in PCR assays and to help elucidate the role of dual viral infections in clinical presentation.

There were limitations to this retrospective study. It was not possible to determine why some children had RIDTs requested and others did not. Furthermore, the guidance for clinical criteria for selection of patients for evaluation by RIDT evolved during the study period as national recommendations for screening and treatment changed.26 Therefore, selection bias resulting from sample ascertainment is possible, and it is unclear what impact the selection bias would have made on the overall estimation of RIDT accuracy. However, it is possible that differences in testing patterns could have influenced the diagnostic accuracy between various patient locations. It also was not possible to determine how long children had had symptoms before obtaining specimens for RIDT, viral culture, and rRT-PCR. Potentially, children with <24 or 48 hours of symptoms might have increased viral antigen levels in respiratory tract secretions, increasing the sensitivity of the RIDT.

CONCLUSIONS

The RIDT displayed excellent specificity but relatively poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus infection in pediatric patients. Treatment of children at high risk who experience influenza-like illness during periods of high prevalence of influenza in the community should not rely solely on the results of RIDT. Empiric antiviral therapy and careful clinical evaluation should be considered for these patients, and confirmatory testing with rRT-PCR or viral culture should be performed, when available, especially if the patient is severely ill, requires hospitalization, or does not respond as anticipated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank James Versalovic, MD, PhD (director of the pathology laboratories and the Division of Molecular Pathology) and the technicians and staff of the Texas Children's Hospital Molecular Microbiology Laboratory and Diagnostic Virology Laboratory for providing timely updates on the burden of influenza A 2009 H1N1 in our community.

Footnotes

    • Accepted December 23, 2009.
  • Address correspondence to Andrea T. Cruz, MD, MPH, Baylor College of Medicine, 6621 Fannin St, Suite A210, MC 1-1481, Houston, TX 77030. E-mail: acruz{at}bcm.edu
  • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

  • rRT-PCR =
    real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction •
    RIDT =
    rapid influenza diagnostic test •
    LR =
    likelihood ratio •
    CI =
    confidence interval

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Novel Swine-Origin Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Investigation Team,
    2. Dawood FS,
    3. Jain S,
    4. Finelli L,
    5. et al
    . Emergence of a novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus in humans [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2009;361(1):102]. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(25):2605–2615
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for pediatric deaths associated with 2009 pandemic influenza (H1N1) virus infection: United States, April–August 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(34):941–947
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluView. Available at: www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly. Accessed November 1, 2009
  4. 4.↵
    1. McGeer A,
    2. Green KA,
    3. Plevneshi A,
    4. et al.
    ; Toronto Invasive Bacterial Diseases Network. Antiviral therapy and outcomes of influenza requiring hospitalization in Ontario, Canada. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(12):1568–1575
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Piedra PA,
    2. Schulman KL,
    3. Blumentals WA
    . Effect of oseltamivir on influenza-related complications in children with chronic medical conditions. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):170–178
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Uyeki TM
    . Influenza diagnosis and treatment in children: a review of studies on clinically useful tests and antiviral treatment for influenza. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003;22(2):164–177
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Landry ML,
    2. Cohen S,
    3. Ferguson D
    . Comparison of Binax NOW and Directigen for rapid detection of influenza A and B. J Clin Virol. 2004;31(2):113–115
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Weinberg A,
    2. Walker ML
    . Evaluation of three immunoassay kits for rapid detection of influenza virus A and B. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2005;12(3):367–370
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Cruz AT,
    2. Cazacu AC,
    3. Greer JM,
    4. Demmler GJ
    . Rapid assays for the diagnosis of influenza A and B viruses in patients evaluated at a large tertiary care children's hospital during two consecutive winter seasons. J Clin Virol. 2008;41(2):143–147
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cruz AT,
    2. Cazacu AC,
    3. McBride LJ,
    4. Greer JM,
    5. Demmler GJ
    . Performance characteristics of a rapid immunochromatographic assay for detection of influenza virus in children during the 2003 to 2004 influenza season. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47(3):250–254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of rapid influenza diagnostic tests for detection of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus: United States, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(30):826–829
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Performance of rapid influenza diagnostic tests during two school outbreaks of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infection: Connecticut, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(37):1029–1032
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Vasoo S,
    2. Stevens J,
    3. Singh K
    . Rapid antigen tests for diagnosis of pandemic (swine) influenza A/H1N1. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(7):1090–1093
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ginocchio CC,
    2. Zhang F,
    3. Manji R,
    4. et al
    . Evaluation of multiple tests methods for the detection of the novel 2009 influenza A (H1N1) during the New York City outbreak. J Clin Virol. 2009;45(3):191–195
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Faix DJ,
    2. Sherman SS,
    3. Waterman SH
    . Rapid-test sensitivity for novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus in humans. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(7):728–729
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Suntarattiwong P,
    2. Jarman RG,
    3. Levy J,
    4. et al
    . Clinical performance of a rapid influenza test and comparison of nasal versus throat swabs to detect 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) infection in Thai children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010; In press
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sandora TJ,
    2. Smole SC,
    3. Lee GM,
    4. Chung S,
    5. Williams L,
    6. McAdam AJ
    . Test characteristics of commercial influenza assays for detecting pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010; In press
  18. 18.↵
    World Health Organization. CDC protocol of realtime RTPCR for swine influenza A (H1N1). Available at: www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/swineflu/CDCrealtimeRTPCRprotocol_20090428.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2009
  19. 19.↵
    1. Hite LK,
    2. Glezen WP,
    3. Demmler GJ,
    4. Muñoz FM
    . Medically attended pediatric influenza during the resurgence of the Victoria lineage of influenza B virus. Int J Infect Dis. 2007;11(1):40–47
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cazacu AC,
    2. Chung SE,
    3. Greer J,
    4. Demmler GJ
    . Comparison of the Directigen Flu A+B membrane enzyme immunoassay with viral culture for rapid detection of influenza A and B viruses in respiratory specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(8):3707–3710
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Smitherman HF,
    2. Caviness AC,
    3. Macias CG
    . Retrospective review of serious bacterial infections in infants who are 0 to 36 months of age and have influenza A infection. Pediatrics. 2005;115(3):710–718
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Krief WI,
    2. Levine DA,
    3. Platt SL,
    4. et al.
    ; Multicenter RSV-SBI Study Group of the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Collaborative Research Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Influenza virus infection and the risk of serious bacterial infections in young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):30–39
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bacterial coinfection in lung tissue specimens from fatal cases of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1: United States, May–August, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(38):1071–1074
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Lee N,
    2. Chan PK,
    3. Hui DS,
    4. et al
    . Viral loads and duration of viral shedding in adult patients hospitalized with influenza. J Infect Dis. 2009;200(4):492–500
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim recommendations for clinical use of influenza diagnostic tests during the 2009–2010 influenza season. Available at: www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/guidance/diagnostic_tests.htm. Accessed October 18, 2009
  26. 26.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim guidance for clinicians on identifying and caring for patients with swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. Available at: www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/recommendations.htm. Accessed January 11, 2010
  • Copyright © 2010 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
PreviousNext
Back to top

Advertising Disclaimer »

In this issue

Pediatrics
Vol. 125, Issue 3
1 Mar 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
View this article with LENS
PreviousNext
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Performance of a Rapid Influenza Test in Children During the H1N1 2009 Influenza A Outbreak
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Request Permissions
Article Alerts
Log in
You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Performance of a Rapid Influenza Test in Children During the H1N1 2009 Influenza A Outbreak
Andrea T. Cruz, Gail J. Demmler-Harrison, A. Chantal Caviness, Gregory J. Buffone, Paula A. Revell
Pediatrics Mar 2010, 125 (3) e645-e650; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-3060

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Performance of a Rapid Influenza Test in Children During the H1N1 2009 Influenza A Outbreak
Andrea T. Cruz, Gail J. Demmler-Harrison, A. Chantal Caviness, Gregory J. Buffone, Paula A. Revell
Pediatrics Mar 2010, 125 (3) e645-e650; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-3060
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Print
Download PDF
Insight Alerts
  • Table of Contents

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Update on Influenza Diagnostics: Lessons from the Novel H1N1 Influenza A Pandemic
  • Sensitivity and specificity of a rapid influenza diagnostic test in children and clinical utility during influenza A (H1N1) 2009 outbreak
  • Development of Two Types of Rapid Diagnostic Test Kits To Detect the Hemagglutinin or Nucleoprotein of the Swine-Origin Pandemic Influenza A Virus H1N1
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Nurse Home Visiting and Maternal Mental Health: 3-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial
  • Neighborhood Child Opportunity Index and Adolescent Cardiometabolic Risk
  • Neonates Born to Mothers With COVID-19: Data From the Spanish Society of Neonatology Registry
Show more 3

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Infectious Disease
    • Infectious Disease
    • Influenza
  • Journal Info
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Policies
  • Overview
  • Licensing Information
  • Authors/Reviewers
  • Author Guidelines
  • Submit My Manuscript
  • Open Access
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions
  • Usage Stats
  • Support
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Resources
  • Media Kit
  • About
  • International Access
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • FAQ
  • AAP.org
  • shopAAP
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
  • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
  • RSS
American Academy of Pediatrics

© 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics