IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijdsci/v4y2019i2p101-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A retrospective data analysis of Legionella pneumophila diagnostic procedures and their impact on patients' management: the experience of a rapid point-of-care test

Author

Listed:
  • Eliona Gkika
  • Dimosthenis Chochlakis
  • Yannis Tselentis
  • Constantin Zopounidis
  • Vassilis S. Kouikoglou
  • Kitsos Gkikas
  • Anna Psaroulaki

Abstract

We compare a conventional and a rapid point of care test (POCT) for the diagnosis of Legionella pneumophila, considering various performance criteria. We used data of patients with positive test for L. pneumophila (confirmed cases), registered by the microbiology laboratories of two hospitals in Crete, Greece. Hospital A adopts a conventional, indirect fluorescent-antibody technique and Hospital B uses a urinary antigen POCT. The mean laboratory turnaround time was 4.45 days for the conventional test and 0.11 days for POCT. A total of 24 laboratory positive cases (11 inpatients, 13 outpatients) were identified out of 905 samples taken from 751 people. The mean daily hospitalisation cost per inpatient was 79.86 for Hospital B and 127.45 for Hospital A; for the latter a much higher antibiotic treatment cost/patient was recorded. The analysis suggests that a rapid POCT for L. pneumophila could significantly decrease time to diagnosis, improve treatment and reduce hospitalisation charges.

Suggested Citation

  • Eliona Gkika & Dimosthenis Chochlakis & Yannis Tselentis & Constantin Zopounidis & Vassilis S. Kouikoglou & Kitsos Gkikas & Anna Psaroulaki, 2019. "A retrospective data analysis of Legionella pneumophila diagnostic procedures and their impact on patients' management: the experience of a rapid point-of-care test," International Journal of Data Science, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(2), pages 101-116.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijdsci:v:4:y:2019:i:2:p:101-116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=100319
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijdsci:v:4:y:2019:i:2:p:101-116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=429 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.