Mayo Clinic Proceedings RSS feed: Articles in Press. The flagship journal of Mayo and arguably one of the premier peer-reviewed clinical journals in general medicine, Mayo Clinic Proceedings is among the most widely read and highly cited scientific publication for physicians, with a circulation of approximately 124,000. While the Journal is sponsored by Mayo Clinic, it welcomes submissions from authors worldwide, publishing articles that focus on clinical medicine and support the professional and educational needs of its readers. Continuously published since 1926, the Proceedings content includes Nobel-prize-winning research. The Journal has an impact factor of 5.712. Ranked #13 in Impact Factor and #13 in Immediacy Index of the 153 journals in the category of General and Internal Medicine, the Journal has increased its Impact Factor every year for 11 years. No other journal in the Medicine category of ISI has done this. The Journal welcomes studies in clinical and laboratory medicine, clinical research, basic science research, and clinical epidemiology. Mayo Clinic Proceedings carries approximately 15 individual articles and features each month, consisting of original research, reviews, clinical content, editorials, commentaries, brief reports, special articles, and other short items. The Journal also offers unique features such as Concise Review for Clinicians, Residents' Clinics, and specially commissioned Symposia. In addition, the Journal carries one to two articles per issue with free CME credit from Mayo Clinic. New types of editorial content are added on a regular basis. For example, effective January 2012 the feature "My Treatment Approach" will be added, providing content highly valuable for the clinician. Finally, the Journal carries significant online-only content as well as supplemental material and videos directly related to the individual articles. The Journal has been completely redesigned in print and online for improved readability, features, and functionality and effective January 2012 will be published in full color throughout. For authors, the time from receipt of submission to first decision is usually 3 weeks and from acceptance to publication is 12 weeks. The Journal 's acceptance rate is approximately 25%, with 72% of manuscripts submitted by non-Mayo authors. For novel, time-sensitive research, an expedited review is available upon request and at the discretion of the Editorial Board. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org//inpress?rss=yesElsevier Inc.en © 2012 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Mayo Clinic Proceedings0025-61962012-05-03 © 2012 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. healthpermissions@elsevier.comhttp://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/PIIS002561961200300X/abstract?rss=yesAbstract: Objective: To compare the effectiveness of self-collected and health care worker (HCW)–collected nasal swabs for detection of influenza viruses and determine the patients' preference for type of collection. Patients and Methods: We enrolled adult patients presenting with influenzalike illness to the Emergency Department at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from January 28, 2011, through April 30, 2011. Patients self-collected a midturbinate nasal flocked swab from their right nostril following written instructions. A second swab was then collected by an HCW from the left nostril. Swabs were tested for influenza A and B viruses by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, and percent concordance between collection methods was determined. Results: Of the 72 paired specimens analyzed, 25 were positive for influenza A or B RNA by at least one of the collection methods (34.7% positivity rate). When the 14 patients who had prior health care training were excluded, the qualitative agreement between collection methods was 94.8% (55 of 58). Two of the 58 specimens (3.4%) from patients without health care training were positive only by HCW collection, and 1 of 58 (1.7%) was positive only by patient self-collection. A total of 53.4% of patients (31 of 58) preferred the self-collection method over the HCW collection, and 25.9% (15 of 58) had no preference. Conclusion: Self-collected midturbinate nasal swabs provide a reliable alternative to HCW collection for influenza A and B virus real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Effectiveness of Patient-Collected Swabs for Influenza Testing - Corrected ProofNeelam Dhiman, Rita M. Miller, Janet L. Finley, Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer, David M. Nestler, Andy J. Boggust, Sarah M. Jenkins, Thomas F. Smith, John W. Wilson, Franklin R. Cockerill, Bobbi S. Pritt10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.011Mayo Clinic Proceedings (2012)2012-05-03Mayo Clinic Proceedings2012-05-03ORIGINAL ARTICLE