Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Non‐invasive virological diagnosis: Are saliva and urine specimens adequate substitutes for blood?

Non‐invasive virological diagnosis: Are saliva and urine specimens adequate substitutes for blood? Non-invasive Virological Diagnosis: Are Saliva and Urine Specimens Adequate Substitutes for Blood? P.P. Mortimer* and J. V. Parry PHLS Virus Reference Laboratoy, 61 Colindale Avenue, London N W 9 5HT, UK INTRODUCTION The blood specimen, collected from a vein or capillary, is the basis for a wide range of serologicai analyses. Staff are specially trained to collect such specimens and much effort expended in persuading patients of the need to have their bodily integrity breached so that the blood can be obtained. Vast amounts of sterile equipment are used to ensure that these collections are performed safely. Health professionals, who are taught at an early stage that most laboratory determinations require a blood specimen, take all this for granted. Patients and research subjects, on the other hand, have never been entirely persuaded. Many dislike the idea of the invading needle, the associated pain and the frequently ensuing bruise. The better informed, moreover, may fear cross infection from unsterile equipment.’ Even in well-ordered circumstances a very few are at a substantial risk from blood collection, for instance those neonates who are made anaemic by too frequent investigatory venepunctures. This review seeks to question the sfdw quo with regard to http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Reviews in Medical Virology Wiley

Non‐invasive virological diagnosis: Are saliva and urine specimens adequate substitutes for blood?

Reviews in Medical Virology , Volume 1 (2) – Jun 1, 1991

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/non-invasive-virological-diagnosis-are-saliva-and-urine-specimens-OzIwPOxIkp

References (22)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN
1052-9276
eISSN
1099-1654
DOI
10.1002/rmv.1980010204
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Non-invasive Virological Diagnosis: Are Saliva and Urine Specimens Adequate Substitutes for Blood? P.P. Mortimer* and J. V. Parry PHLS Virus Reference Laboratoy, 61 Colindale Avenue, London N W 9 5HT, UK INTRODUCTION The blood specimen, collected from a vein or capillary, is the basis for a wide range of serologicai analyses. Staff are specially trained to collect such specimens and much effort expended in persuading patients of the need to have their bodily integrity breached so that the blood can be obtained. Vast amounts of sterile equipment are used to ensure that these collections are performed safely. Health professionals, who are taught at an early stage that most laboratory determinations require a blood specimen, take all this for granted. Patients and research subjects, on the other hand, have never been entirely persuaded. Many dislike the idea of the invading needle, the associated pain and the frequently ensuing bruise. The better informed, moreover, may fear cross infection from unsterile equipment.’ Even in well-ordered circumstances a very few are at a substantial risk from blood collection, for instance those neonates who are made anaemic by too frequent investigatory venepunctures. This review seeks to question the sfdw quo with regard to

Journal

Reviews in Medical VirologyWiley

Published: Jun 1, 1991

There are no references for this article.