<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E. Padalko</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">K. Lagrou</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reynders,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bernard China</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kris Vernelen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Low yield by molecular detection of Chlamydophila pneumoniae in respiratory samples in Belgium questioning its etiological role in respiratory tract infections.561</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Clin.Belg.</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">a</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">additional</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">analysi</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">analysis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Belgian</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Belgium</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">burden</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chlamydophila pneumoniae</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">data</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">detection</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Diagnosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">differences</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Etiology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EVALUATION</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hospital</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hospitals</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">INFECTION</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">infections</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Laboratories</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">method</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">methods</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Molecular</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">molecular detection</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Observation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ON</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PCR</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">RATES</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Respiratory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Respiratory Tract Infections</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Role</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">routine</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sample</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Samples</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">study</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">use</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yield</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1/7/2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">168</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">68</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">166 - 168</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The actual burden of respiratory infections due to Chlamydophila pneumoniae is difficult to assess due to the major differences in positivity rates between PCR- and serology-based methods. The aim of the current study was to objectively analyse the yield of PCRs for the detection of C. pneumoniae in respiratory samples and to evaluate the additional value of performing laboratory diagnosis for C. pneumoniae in a setting of respiratory infection. The data based on routine analysis of respiratory samples with request for C. pneumoniae detection were collected from 4 large Belgian hospitals during 2 consecutive years. In total 3560 respiratory samples have been analysed and overall only 7 samples (0.2%) were found positive. Based on these observations, the critical evaluation of the actual role of C. pneumoniae in the etiology of lower respiratory infections and consequently of the extensive use of diagnostic tools for the detection of C. pneumoniae is needed.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38822</style></custom1><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">166</style></section></record></records></xml>