ArticlePloS one2010
The blind nasotracheal aspiration method is not a useful tool for pathogen detection of pneumonia in children.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Article
- Validation of nasal tracheal aspiration in children with lung disease.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
- Hospitalization for Invasive Pneumococcal Diseases in Young Children before Use of 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine, Suzhou, China.Emerging infectious diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) is a major cause of hospitalization for children in China, while the etiological diagnosis of ALRI remains a challenge. This study was performed to evaluate the utility of the blind Nasotracheal aspiration (NTA) in the pathogen detection in ALRI through an evaluation of the test's specificity. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsA hospital-based study of children ≤3 years was carried out from March 2006 through March 2007 in Suzhou University Affiliated Children's Hospital, including 379 cases with ALRI from the respiratory wards, and 394 controls receiving elective surgery. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and NTA specimens were taken on admission. S. pneumoniae was isolated from 10.3% of NTA samples from ALRI children, H. influenzae from 15.3%, and M. catarrhalis from 4.7%. The false positive rate--the strains from NTA in control group children--was 8.4% (95% CI: 5.8%-11.4%) for S. pneumoniae, 27.2% (95% CI: 22.7-31.5%) for H. influenzae, and 22.1% (95% CI: 18.0%-26.2%) for M. catarrhalis. The agreement between NPS and NTA in the control group was over 70%. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The blind NTA test is not a useful test for etiologic diagnosis of ALRI.
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.