Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 29;17(1):e13056. doi: 10.1111/irv.13056

TABLE 1.

Respiratory pathogens detected from study participants by enrollment site

Total n (%) Machala n (%) Quito n (%) p‐value a
Samples collected 820 491 329
One or more pathogens detected 655 (80) 374 (76) 281 (85) 0.001
Rhinoviruses 285 (44) 184 (49) 101 (36) <0.001
Enteroviruses 111 (17) 29 (8) 82 (29) <0.001
Coxsackie A6 12 (11) 3 (10) 9 (11) 0.9
Coxsackie A9 9 (8) 0 9 (11)
Coxsackie B4 8 (7) 0 8 (10)
Coxsackie B5 12 (11) 0 12 (15)
Coxsackie B6 2 (2) 2 (7) 0 0.1
Echovirus 3 3 (3) 0 3 (4)
Echovirus 11 4 (4) 3 (10) 1 (1) 0.02
Echovirus 18 6 (5) 0 6 (7)
Enterovirus C105 7 (6) 7 (24) 0
Enterovirus D68 48 (43) 14 (48) 34 (41) 0.52
Parainfluenza viruses 113 (17) 57 (15) 56 (20) 0.12
Parainfluenza virus type 1 22 (19) 7 (12) 15 (27) 0.52
Parainfluenza virus type 2 9 (8) 4 (7) 5 (9) 0.71
Parainfluenza virus type 3 53 (47) 27 (47) 26 (46) 0.92
Parainfluenza virus type 4 29 (26) 19 (33) 10 (18) 0.06
Respiratory syncytial virus 99 (15) 40 (11) 59 (21) <0.001
Influenza viruses 83 (13) 38 (10) 45 (16) 0.03
Influenza A H1N1 10 (12) 6 (16) 4 (9) 0.34
Influenza A H3N2 34 (41) 11 (29) 23 (51) 0.04
Influenza B 37 (45) 19 (50) 18 (40) 0.36
Influenza virus—not typeable 2 (2) 2 (5) 0
Human metapneumovirus 63 (10) 40 (11) 23 (8) 0.28
Adenovirus 55 (8) 20 (5) 35 (12) 0.001
Coronaviruses 44 b (7) 27 b (7) 17 (6) 0.55
Coronavirus OC43 15 (34) 6 (22) 9 (53) 0.04
Coronavirus HKU1 6 (14) 3 (11) 3 (18) 0.54
Coronavirus 229E 11 (25) 8 (30) 3 (18) 0.37
Coronavirus NL63 14 (32) 12 (44) 2 (12) 0.02
Atypical bacteria 15 (2) 11 (3) 4 (1) 0.199
Mycoplasma pneumoniae 9 (60) 5 (45) 4 (100)
Chlamydia pneumoniae 6 (40) 6 (55) 0
Bordetella pertussis 0 0 0
Single pathogen detected 481 (73) 307 (82) 174 (62) <0.001
Two pathogens detected 153 (23) 66 (18) 87 (31) <0.001
Three pathogens detected 17 (3) 1 (<1) 16 (6) <0.001
Four pathogens detected 4 (<1) 0 4 (1)
a

p‐value when comparing the frequency of detection between Machala and Quito.

b

Total number does not equal the sum of the virus types as two subjects had co‐detection of two coronavirus types.