Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15555826›Full record

ReviewInfectious disease clinics of North America2004

Diagnostic test for etiologic agents of community-acquired pneumonia.

John G Bartlett

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Infectious disease clinics of North America, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2007
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pneumonia as the most common lower respiratory tract infection.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2013
    Article
  7. Article
  8. What is the role of newer molecular tests in the management of CAP?Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2013
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

John G BartlettDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205-2191, USA. jb@jhmi.edu
Johns Hopkins Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic tests for the detection of the etiologic agent of pneumonia are neither recommended nor done for most outpatients with CAP (Table 4).Most of these patients have no clear diagnosis but seem to do well with empiric antibiotic treatment, which often costs less than the diagnostic tests. For hospitalized patients, a pre-treatment blood culture and an expectorated sputum gram stain and culture should be done. Testing for Legionella spp is appropriate in hospitalized patients, especially those who are seriously ill. New tests that merit use in selected patients are the urinary antigen assay for S pneumoniae and the PCR test for L pneumophila. Anticipated developments in the near future are PCR tests for detection of C pneumoniae and M pneumoniae.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesBioterrorismCommunity-Acquired InfectionsHumansLegionnaires' DiseasePneumonia, BacterialSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID15555826
PMCPMC7118911
OpenAlexW1994894835

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.