Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21611848›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2012

Airborne fungi and bacteria in indoor and outdoor environment of the Pediatric Unit of Edirne Government Hospital.

Suzan Okten, Ahmet Asan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Compositional Data Analysis of 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing Results from Hospital Airborne Microbiome Samples.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Indoor airborne fungal pollution in newborn units in Turkey.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Assessment of relevant fungal species in clinical solid wastes.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2016
    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

2 authors.

Suzan OktenFaculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Biology, Trakya University, 22030 Edirne, Turkey, suzanokten@hotmail.com
Ahmet Asan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was performed between January 2004 and December 2004 in 13 stations in the Pediatric Unit of Edirne Government Hospital in order to determine the outdoor and indoor airborne microfungal and bacterial contents. The results of air samplings revealed that 1,376 microfungal and 2,429 bacterial colonies in total were isolated. The isolated microfungal specimens were identified and 65 species from 16 genera were determined. Among these, the most frequent genus was Cladosporium with 462 colonies (33.58%) followed by Alternaria with 310 (22.53%) and Penicillium with 280 (20.35%) colonies. The isolated bacterial samples were grouped based on their Gram-staining properties. The most frequent ones were Gram (+) cocci with 1,527 colonies (62.87%) followed by Gram (+) bacilli with 828 colonies (34.09%) and Gram (-) bacilli with 74 colonies (3.05%). Staphylococcus, Bacillus, Corynebacterium, and Microccus appeared to be the common genera isolated for all months. Statistical analyses were performed in order to see if there existed a relationship between meteorological conditions and the microfungal and bacterial species and their concentrations.

Indexed as

Air MicrobiologyAir PollutionAir Pollution, IndoorBacteriaEnvironmental ExposureFungiHospitals, PediatricHumansSeasons

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.