Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15165745›Full record

ReviewTrends in pharmacological sciences2004

Intravenous immunoglobulin for infectious diseases: back to the pre-antibiotic and passive prophylaxis era?

Jagadeesh Bayry, Sébastien Lacroix-Desmazes, Michel D Kazatchkine, Srini V Kaveri

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in pharmacological sciences, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Current Perspectives of Antifungal Therapy: A Special Focus onJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Immune-Based Therapy for COVID-19.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021
    Article
  12. COVID-19: benefits and risks of passive immunotherapeutics.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Treatment Options for COVID-19: A Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2020
    Review
  18. Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy EliminatesInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jagadeesh BayryINSERM U430 and Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Institut des Cordeliers, 15 rue de l'Ecole de Médecine, 75006, Paris, France.
Sébastien Lacroix-Desmazes
Michel D Kazatchkine
Srini V Kaveri
Inserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dramatic increase in both the number of novel infectious agents and resistance to antimicrobial drugs has incited the need for adjunct therapies in the war against infectious diseases. Exciting recent studies have demonstrated the use of antibodies in the form of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) against infections. By virtue of the diverse repertoire of immunoglobulins that possess a wide spectrum of antibacterial and antiviral specificities, IVIg provides antimicrobial efficacy independently of pathogen resistance and represents a promising alternative strategy for the treatment of diseases for which a specific therapy is not yet available.

Indexed as

Immunization, PassiveAnimalsBacterial InfectionsHumansImmunoglobulins, IntravenousInfectionsVirus DiseasesImmunoglobulins, Intravenous

Identifiers

PMID15165745
PMCPMC7127229
OpenAlexW1966140905

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.