ArticleEpidemiology and infection2008
Serological responses to Cryptosporidium-specific antigens in Czech populations with different water sources.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Host-specificParasitology · 2024Article
- Review ofEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2018Review
- Use of Pathogen-Specific Antibody Biomarkers to Estimate Waterborne Infections in Population-Based Settings.Current environmental health reports · 2016Review
- Effects of drinking-water filtration on Cryptosporidium seroepidemiology, Scotland.Emerging infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Systemic antibody responses to the immunodominant p23 antigen and p23 polymorphisms in children with cryptosporidiosis in Bangladesh.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2012Article
- Cryptosporidiosis: environmental, therapeutic, and preventive challenges.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serological responses to Cryptosporidium-specific antigens (15/17 and 27 kDa) were compared among populations in four areas of the Czech Republic that use drinking water from clearly defined sources: (1) wells in a fractured sandstone aquifer, (2) riverbank infiltration, or (3) two different filtered and chlorinated surface waters. Among persons surveyed in the area with riverbank-infiltration water, 33% had a strong serological response to the 15/17-kDa antigen group whereas, in the other three areas, over 72% of persons had a strong response. These response differences suggest that Cryptosporidium exposures and infection were lower in the area with bank infiltration. The large percentage of the study population with a strong serological response to both antigens suggests high levels of previous infections that may have resulted in protective immunity for cryptosporidiosis. This may be one reason why no waterborne cryptosporidiosis outbreaks and few cases of cryptosporidiosis have been reported in the Czech Republic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.