Selected article for: "acute infection and adenovirus influenza"

Author: Derrar, F.; Izri, K.; Kaddache, C.; Boukari, R.; Hannoun, D.
Title: Virologic study of acute lower respiratory tract infections in children admitted to the paediatric department of Blida University Hospital, Algeria
  • Document date: 2019_3_27
  • ID: 0rb5wpmq_27
    Snippet: One virus was identified in the majority of children. The positivity rate observed (82.9%) was high-higher, in fact, than in many similar studies, which found it to range from 35% to 78% [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] . Bezerra et al. [14] found a comparable positivity rate (85.5%) in 407 children younger than 5 with acute upper or lower respiratory tract infection. The high rate observed in our study was partly due to the fact that this was a p.....
    Document: One virus was identified in the majority of children. The positivity rate observed (82.9%) was high-higher, in fact, than in many similar studies, which found it to range from 35% to 78% [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] . Bezerra et al. [14] found a comparable positivity rate (85.5%) in 407 children younger than 5 with acute upper or lower respiratory tract infection. The high rate observed in our study was partly due to the fact that this was a prospective study conducted by nasal sampling with good cost-effectiveness [15] , most often in infants with severe ALRTI during the season corresponding to the peak of viral respiratory infections. This high virus detection rate may reflect the environment in which these children live, where viruses circulate in abundance as a result of family size and promiscuity. The viruses most frequently detected are RSV (48%), HRV (23%), HMPV (22%), adenovirus (7.5%) and influenza (5%). RSV is the most frequently implicated, regardless of the clinical picture, followed by HRV, then HMPV. The distribution of viruses observed in this survey is comparable to that already reported in the literature [11, 16, 17] .

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • clinical picture and high virus: 1, 2
    • clinical picture and literature report: 1
    • comparable positivity rate and high rate: 1
    • cost effectiveness and detection rate: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
    • cost effectiveness and frequently detect: 1, 2
    • cost effectiveness and good cost effectiveness: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    • cost effectiveness and high rate: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
    • cost effectiveness and high virus: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
    • cost effectiveness and literature report: 1
    • detection rate and high rate: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • detection rate and high virus: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
    • detection rate and high virus detection rate: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • family size and high rate: 1
    • family size and high virus: 1
    • frequently detect and high rate: 1
    • frequently detect and high virus: 1
    • high rate and literature report: 1, 2, 3