Key result
Professional football players show no difference in respiratory infection risk compared to staff.
Why the study?
Acute infections among elite athletes are predominantly attributed to upper respiratory tract pathogens, but infection prevention strategies require better prevalence data.
Does multiplex rapid diagnostic testing effectively identify respiratory infections in professional football players and staff?
Observational (n=50)
No
Does multiplex rapid diagnostic testing effectively identify respiratory infections in professional football players and staff?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Multiplex rapid diagnostic tests are feasible for early identification of respiratory infections in professional sports settings, facilitating improved clinical management.
Background and Objectives: Acute infections among elite athletes are predominantly attributed to upper respiratory tract pathogens. From a practical standpoint, medical personnel responsible for the healthcare of professional football players should be aware of this and develop infection prevention strategies. This pilot study aimed to investigate the prevalence of respiratory infections in football players using multiplex rapid diagnostic tests targeting four respiratory pathogens. Materials and Methods: The mean age of the participants was 32.76 ± 10.96 years. Among the participants, 32 were professional football players, with a mean age of 26.5 years, SD + 5.3, and 18 were members of staff, with a mean age of 44.3 years, SD + 8.6. In the present study, participants were followed up over a period of 6 months (from October 2024 to March 2025). Results: Among the participants and among a total of 1078 tests, 10 tests were found to be positive. We recorded a proportion of 0.46% for Flu-A, 0.27% for Flu-B, 0.18% for SARS-CoV-2, and 0 positive tests for RSV and adenovirus. There were six days of absence for players and staff and the proportion of total absenteeism was calculated as 3.7%. Univariate analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in infection risk between staff and players (odds ratio: 0.3795; 95% confidence interval: 0.07843–1.735). Conclusions: The multiplex rapid diagnostic test platform has a demonstrated ease of use and appears to be a reliable and safe method for distinguishing contagious symptomatic individuals from non-contagious individuals in occupational settings. Early identification of respiratory infections facilitates improved clinical management, thereby enhancing the quality of care for both athletes and supporting staff.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papagiannis et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Viral Upper Airway Respiratory Infections (n=50). Multiplex rapid diagnostic tests vs. Staff members was evaluated on Infection risk (OR 0.3795, 95% CI 0.07843-1.735). Multiplex rapid diagnostic testing over 6 months revealed no significant difference in respiratory infection risk between professional football players and staff (OR 0.3795; 95% CI 0.07843-1.735).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: