Research Information System
Royal College of General Practitioners UK, Annual Primary Care Conference 2013, Harrogate, United Kingdom, 1 - 04 October 2013, pp.1-114
A clinical score to diagnose viral sore throat
Mistik S.1, Balci E.2, Gokahmetoglu S.3, Onuk F.A.4
1 Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Department of Family Medicine, Kayseri, TUrkey
2 Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Department of Public Health, Kayseri, Turkey
3 Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Department of Microbiology, Kayseri, Turkey
4 Bunyamin Somyurek Family Health Centre, Kayseri, Turkey
Background: Sore throat is a very common problem seen in general practice. Less than %15 in children and %10 in adults have documented group A beta-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS). Viral agents cause the majority of sore throats. Many scores have focused on the diagnosis of GABHS in patients with sore throat, because of its importance in the necessity of using antibiotics. However, there is not a score to diagnose viral sore throat.
Objective: The aim of this study was to (1) find the rate of bacterial and viral causes of sore throat (2) show the differences between months (3) to form a new scoring system to diagnose viral sore throat.
Methods: The study is conducted in a Family Health Centre, where 12 family physicians work. A throat culture for GABHS and a nasopharyngeal swab to detect 16 respiratory viruses are obtained from each patient. The study has started at the first week of June 2013 and will be finished in 52 weeks. A total of 624 throat cultures and viral analysis will be done. PCR analyses are performed to detect the following respiratory viruses: RSV, influenza (A, B, and swine- H1N1), parainfluenza (1-4), adenovirus, bocavirus, coronavirus (229 E, NL 63, and OC 43), metapneumovirus, enterovirus (coxachievirus), and rhinovirus. History of the patients and clinical findings are recorded in detail.
Results: Of the 45 sore throat patients included in the study in June 2013, viral infection was found in 18 (40%) of the patients. GABHS infection was found in 2 (4%) of the patients. The viruses detected were rhinovirus (8, 17%), coronavirus (three NL63, two OC43) (5, 11%), enterovirus (3, 6%), parainfluenza 3 and 4 (2, 4%), adenovirus (2, 4%), and bocavirus (1, 2%). Four viruses were detected in one patient (rhinovirus, parainflunza, bocavirus, and enterovirus).
Conclusion: Analysis of data at the end of the study will show us whether it may be possible to form a new viral diagnostic score or not.