Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test information on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites : A content analysis

Funding: This project was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Program grant (APP1113532Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Community awareness and use of anti-Müllerian hormone testing in Australia : a population survey of women

Funding This project was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence grant (1104136) and Program grant (1113532). T.C. is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship (2009419).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists : A cross-sectional study

The authors would like to thank the clinicians who participated in this study. Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Sydney, as part of the Wiley - The University of Sydney agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.Peer reviewe

Identification of Respiratory Viruses in Adults: Nasopharyngeal versus Oropharyngeal Sampling▿

The optimal method for identifying respiratory viruses in adults has not been established. The objective of the study was to compare the sensitivities of three sampling methods for this purpose. One thousand participants (mean age, 63.1 ± 17.8 years) were included. Of these, 550 were patients hospitalized for acute febrile lower respiratory tract infections and 450 were controls. Oropharyngeal swabs (OPS), nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), and nasopharyngeal washings (NPW) were obtained from each participant and were tested for 12 respiratory viruses by a multiplex hydrolysis probes-based quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR. Patients were defined as positive for a specific virus if the virus was identified by at least one sampling method. In all, 251 viruses were identified in 244 participants. For the detection of any virus, the sensitivity rates for OPS, NPS, and NPW were 54.2%, 73.3%, and 84.9%, respectively (for OPS versus NPS and NPW, P < 0.00001; for NPS versus NPW, P < 0.003). Maximal sensitivity was obtained only with sampling by all three methods. The same gradation of sensitivity for the three sampling methods was found when influenza viruses, coronaviruses, and rhinoviruses were analyzed separately. The three sampling methods yielded equal sensitivity rates for respiratory syncytial virus. We conclude that nasopharyngeal sampling has a higher rate of sensitivity than oropharyngeal sampling and that the use of NPW has a higher rate of sensitivity than the use of NPS with a rigid cotton swab for the identification of respiratory viruses in adults. Sampling by all three methods is required for the maximal detection of respiratory viruses

Nasopharyngeal versus Oropharyngeal Sampling for Isolation of Potential Respiratory Pathogens in Adults

The optimal methodology for the identification of colonization by potential respiratory pathogens (PRP) in adults is not well established. The objectives of the present study were to compare the sensitivities of sampling the nasopharynx and the oropharynx for identification of PRP colonization and to compare the sensitivities of samples from the nasopharynx by swab and by washing for the same purpose. The study included 500 participants with a mean age of 65.1 ± 17.8 years. Of these, 300 patients were hospitalized for acute febrile lower respiratory tract infection and 200 were controls. Each participant was sampled by oropharyngeal swab (OPS), nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and nasopharyngeal washing (NPW). The samples were tested by conventional bacteriological methods to identify Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. OPS detected colonization by S. pneumoniae in 30% of the subjects compared with 89% by NPS and NPW (P < 0.000001). The corresponding rates for H. influenzae were 49% and 64%, respectively (no significant difference [NS]), and for M. catarrhalis were 72% and 46%, respectively (P < 0.0004). NPS identified 61% of the cases of colonization with S. pneumoniae, compared with 76% by NPW (NS). The corresponding rates for H. influenzae were 31% and 56%, respectively (P < 0.04), and for M. catarrhalis were 39% and 33%, respectively (NS). We conclude that the sensitivities of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal sampling for identification of PRP colonization in adults are different for each of the three bacteria in this category. The combined results of sampling from both sites are necessary to obtain a true picture of the rate of colonization. NPW is superior to NPS