Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22330320›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2012

Co-infection of HIV and intestinal parasites in rural area of China.

Li-Guang Tian, Jia-Xu Chen, Tian-Ping Wang, Guo-Jin Cheng, Peter Steinmann, Feng-Feng Wang, Yu-Chun Cai, Xiao-Mei Yin, Jian Guo, Li Zhou and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Coexistence ofBiology · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Prevalence and Genotyping ofJournal of Cancer · 2020
    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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Li-Guang TianNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, WHO Collaborating Centre for Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Filariasis, Key Laboratory of Parasite & Vector Biology Ministry of Health, Shanghai 200025, China.
Jia-Xu Chen
Tian-Ping Wang
Guo-Jin Cheng
Peter Steinmann
Feng-Feng Wang
Yu-Chun Cai
Xiao-Mei Yin
Jian Guo
Li Zhou
Xiao-Nong Zhou
National Institute for Parasitic Diseases · CNJiangsu Institute of Parasitic Diseases · CNSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntestinal parasite infections (IPIs) are among the most significant causes of illness and disease of socially and economically disadvantaged populations in developing countries, including rural areas of the People's Republic of China. With the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among rural Chinese populations, there is ample scope for co-infections and there have been increasing fears about their effects. However, hardly any relevant epidemiological studies have been carried out in the country. The aim of the present survey was to assess the IPI infection status among a representative sample of HIV-positive Chinese in rural Anhui province, and compare the findings with those from a cohort of non-infected individuals.

methodsA case control study was carried out in a rural village of Fuyang, Anhui province, China. Stool samples of all participants were examined for the presence of intestinal parasites. Blood examination was performed for the HIV infection detection and anemia test. A questionnaire was administered to all study participants.

resultsA total of 302 HIV positive and 303 HIV negative individuals provided one stool sample for examination. The overall IPI prevalence of intestinal helminth infections among HIV positives was 4.3% (13/302) while it was 5.6% (17/303) among HIV negatives, a non-significant difference. The prevalence of protozoa infections among HIV positives was 23.2% while the rate was 25.8% among HIV negatives. The species-specific prevalences among HIV positives were as follows: 3.6% for hookworm, 0.7% for Trichuris trichiura, zero for Ascaris lumbricoides, 0.3% for Clonorchis sinensis, 1.3% for Giardia intestinalis, 16.2% for Blastocystis hominis, 1.7% for Entamoeba spp. and 8.3% for Cryptosporidium spp.. Cryptosporidium spp. infections were significantly more prevalent among HIV positives (8.3%) compared to the HIV negative group (3.0%; P < 0.05). Among people infected with HIV, Cryptosporidium spp. was significantly more prevalent among males (12.6%) than females (4.4%; P < 0.05). According to multivariate logistic regression, the factors significantly associated with parasite infections of the people who were HIV positive included sex (male: OR = 6.70, 95% CI: 2.030, 22.114), younger age (less than 42 years old: OR = 4.148, 95% CI: 1.348, 12.761), and poor personal hygiene habits (OR = 0.324, 95% CI: 0.105, 0.994).

conclusionsHIV positive individuals are more susceptible to co-infections with Cryptosporidium spp. than HIV negative people, particularly younger males with poor personal hygiene habits, indicating a need for targeted hygiene promotion, IPI surveillance and treatment.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAnimalsBloodCase-Control StudiesChildChinaCoinfectionFecesFemaleHIVHIV InfectionsHumansIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticMale

Identifiers

PMID22330320
PMCPMC3310850
OpenAlexW2101637601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.