ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2007
Epidemiological survey of tick-borne encephalitis virus and Anaplasma phagocytophilum co-infections in patients from regions of the Czech Republic endemic for tick-borne diseases.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the period 2000-2003, patients hospitalized for suspected tick-borne encephalitis in the Czech Republic were screened for possible A. phagocytophilum co-infection. Blood samples taken at admission were tested for the presence of A. phagocytophilum DNA by nested PCR using a modified target sequence as an internal control, and sera were tested for the presence of antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence and western blotting methods using cell-culture-derived antigens. To verify the assay specificity, a set of 45 sera of Patagonian residents served as a non-tick-exposed control group, and a set of 14 B. henselae-positive sera was used to check cross-reactivity. Of 809 patients hospitalized, 80 (9.9%) showed IgG antibodies reactive to A. phagocytophilum at > or =80 (reciprocal dilution factor) and 50 (6.2%) at > or =160; two (0.2%) patients showed elevated IgM titers of 40. No full blood obtained from 162 patients tested positive in PCR when false negativity was excluded. During hospitalization, the diagnosis of tick-borne encephalitis was confirmed in 536 patients, 57 (10.6%) of whom had anti-A. phagocytophilum IgG antibodies reactive at > or =80 and 41 (7.6%) at > or =160, which did not differ significantly from the whole set (P = 0.66/0.30), the maximum IgG titer registered was 5120, and no IgM titer reached the 40 cut-off. Available paired sera from 189 tick-borne encephalitis patients showed no significant shifts, but one case of slight seroconversion (IgG shift from < 80 to 320) was detected in one of the non-tick-borne encephalitis patients. The sex of the patient showed no significance for the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum antibodies; however, the seropositive patients were older on average than those who were seronegative (43.5 +/- 15.9 vs. 37.9 +/- 18.3 years, P = 0.05). Clinical manifestation of the disease did not differ noticeably between patients with and without A. phagocytophilumreactive antibodies, except for fever duration, which was significantly longer in patients with titers > or =1280. Overall, A. phagocytophilum co-infection did not seem to be a frequent and/or significant complication of tick-borne encephalitis acquired in the Czech Republic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17943406What 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.