Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11148008›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2001

Historical perspective of foamy virus epidemiology and infection.

C D Meiering, M L Linial

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

99 citing papers in PubMed, 192 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Zoonotic pathogens survey in free-living long-tailed macaques in Thailand.International journal of veterinary science and medicine · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Foamy Virus Integrase in Development of Viral Vector for Gene Therapy.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Evolutionary Medicine of Retroviruses in the Human Genome.The American journal of the medical sciences · 2019
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C D MeieringDivision of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA.
M L Linial
University of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Foamy viruses (FV) are complex retroviruses which are widespread in many species. Despite being discovered over 40 years ago, FV are among the least well characterized retroviruses. The replication of these viruses is different in many interesting respects from that of all other retroviruses. Infection of natural hosts by FV leads to a lifelong persistent infection, without any evidence of pathology. A large number of studies have looked at the prevalence of primate foamy viruses in the human population. Many of these studies have suggested that FV infections are prevalent in some human populations and are associated with specific diseases. More recent data, using more rigorous criteria for the presence of viruses, have not confirmed these studies. Thus, while FV are ubiquitous in all nonhuman primates, they are only acquired as rare zoonotic infections in humans. In this communication, we briefly discuss the current status of FV research and review the history of FV epidemiology, as well as the lack of pathogenicity in natural, experimental, and zoonotic infections.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, ViralCross InfectionDisease Models, AnimalGenetic VectorsGenome, ViralGraves DiseaseHumansMiceMultiple SclerosisMyasthenia GravisPrevalenceRabbitsRetroviridae InfectionsSeroepidemiologic StudiesSpumavirusAntibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID11148008
PMCPMC88968
OpenAlexW2109358132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.