Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15550216›Full record

ReviewEmerging infectious diseases2004

Contribution of sex-linked biology and gender roles to disparities with trachoma.

Paul Courtright, Sheila K West

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Emerging infectious diseases, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trachoma.Lancet (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Modelling morbidity for neglected tropical diseases: the long and winding road from cumulative exposure to long-term pathology.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Trachoma.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Prevalence of trachoma in Pernambuco State, Brazil (2014-2015).Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2021
    Article
  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.

Paul CourtrightTumaini University, Moshi, Tanzania. pcourtright@kcmc.ac.tz
Sheila K West
Johns Hopkins University · USTumaini University · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, trachoma is the leading infectious cause of blindness. Survey data consistently show that trachoma-related blindness is two to four times higher in women than men. Tracing the increased risk for trachoma and its consequences for women suggests that other factors besides biology may contribute. Understanding the reasons for the excess risk for and consequences of trachoma in girls and women requires examining a number of issues: Are girls and women more biologically susceptible to the consequences of infection with Chlamydia trachomatis? Could other factors help explain the excess of conjunctival scarring and trichiasis in women? Do gender roles affect the risk for trachoma and its consequences? Are women more likely to have recurrence after trichiasis surgery compared to men? This article explores the answers to these questions.

Indexed as

Women's HealthBlindnessFemaleGender IdentityHumansMaleRisk FactorsSex FactorsTrachoma

Identifiers

PMID15550216
PMCPMC3328994
OpenAlexW2060120567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.