Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19841975›Full record

ArticleCurrent microbiology2010

Potentially pathogenic acanthamoeba isolated from a hospital in Brazil.

Ana Maris Carlesso, Geórgia Lazzari Artuso, Karin Caumo, Marilise Brittes Rott

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Genotyping ofInternational journal of microbiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Isolation and molecular identification ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Ana Maris CarlessoUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Sarmento Leite, 500, Porto Alegre, RS, CEP 90050170, Brazil. anacarlesso@yahoo.com.br
Geórgia Lazzari Artuso
Karin Caumo
Marilise Brittes Rott

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies on free-living amoebae (FLA), has been increased in recent years, especially related to the genus Acanthamoeba, because these organisms are widely found in the environment. The present work isolated and characterized this organism from biofilms and dust in hospital environment. 135 samples were collected in 15 different environments in a hospital at the south of Brazil. Thirty-one (23%) isolates were identified as morphologically belonging to the Acanthamoeba genus and 10 of these were submitted to temperature and osmotolerance tests as criterion for evaluation of the viability and pathogenicity. The tests indicate that four (40%) of these isolates could be potentially pathogenic because grew at high temperature (40 degrees C) and osmolarity (mannitol 1 M). Some isolates genotypes were determined after ribosomal DNA sequencing. These data revealed that three dust isolates belong to T4, two biofilm isolates to T5 and one dust isolate to T3 genotype. Therefore, Acanthamoeba found in the hospital environment represents a risk for people that circulate there.

Indexed as

AcanthamoebaAnimalsBiofilmsBrazilChildDNA, RibosomalDustEmergency Service, HospitalFlagellaGenotypeHospitals, PublicHumansIntensive Care UnitsMannitolPolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 18SDNA, RibosomalDustMannitolRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

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.