Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11781264›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2002

Chlamydia pneumoniae and atherosclerosis: critical assessment of diagnostic methods and relevance to treatment studies.

Jens Boman, Margaret R Hammerschlag

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Infectious and coronary artery disease.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2016
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Chlamydophila pneumoniae infection and cardiovascular disease.North American journal of medical sciences · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Is C. Pneumoniae research in peril?Frontiers in microbiology · 2011
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jens BomanDepartment of Virology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Margaret R Hammerschlag
State University of New York · USSUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of studies have found that inflammation of the vessel wall plays an essential role in both the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and erosion and fissure and the eventual rupture of plaques. Chlamydia pneumoniae is one of the infectious agents that have been investigated as possible causes of this inflammation. Initial studies of the association of C. pneumoniae and cardiovascular disease (CVD) were seroepidemiologic, and these were followed by studies in which the organism was identified in vascular tissue from patients with CVD by electron microscopy, PCR and immunocytochemical staining (ICC). C. pneumoniae has also been isolated by culture from vascular tissue in a small number patients. However, no single serologic, PCR, or ICC assay has been used consistently across all studies. The assays used are also not standardized. Recent studies of serologic and PCR assays for diagnosis of C. pneumoniae infection have suggested that there may be substantial interlaboratory variation in the performance of these tests. It now appears that some of the inconsistency of results from study to study may be due, in part, to lack of standardized methods. Although initial seroepidemiologic studies demonstrated a significantly increased risk of adverse cardiac outcome in patients who were seropositive, subsequent prospective studies found either small or no increased risk. In addition to the lack of consistent serologic criteria, recent evaluations have demonstrated inherent problems with performance of the most widely used serologic methods. Most importantly, we do not have a reliable serologic marker for chronic or persistent C. pneumoniae infection.

Indexed as

Chlamydophila pneumoniaeAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibodies, BacterialArteriosclerosisChildChild, PreschoolChlamydophila InfectionsHumansInfantMaleMiceRabbitsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibodies, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID11781264
PMCPMC118057
OpenAlexW2105688799

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.