Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22678349›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2012

Respiratory viral infections during the 2009-2010 winter season in Central England, UK: incidence and patterns of multiple virus co-infections.

H Tanner, E Boxall, H Osman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H TannerHealth Protection Agency Public Health Laboratory Birmingham, Heartlands Hospital, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham, B9 5SS, UK. hannah.tanner@heartofengland.nhs.uk
E Boxall
H Osman
Heartlands Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute viral respiratory infections are the most common infections in humans. Co-infection with different respiratory viruses is well documented but not necessarily well understood. The aim of this study was to utilise laboratory data from the winter season following the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) outbreak to investigate rates of respiratory virus co-infections, virus prevalence in different age groups and temporal variations in virus detection. The Health Protection Agency Public Health Laboratory (HPA PHL) Birmingham, UK, routinely uses polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect common respiratory viruses. The results from specimens received for respiratory virus investigations from late September 2009 to April 2010 were analysed. A total of 4,821 specimen results were analysed. Of these, 323 (13.2 %) had co-detections of two viruses, 22 (0.9 %) had three viruses and four (0.2 %) had four viruses. Reciprocal patterns of positive or negative associations between different virus pairs were found. Statistical analysis confirmed the significance of negative associations between influenza A and human metapneumovirus (HMPV), and influenza A and rhinovirus. Positive associations between parainfluenza with rhinovirus, rhinovirus with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and adenovirus with rhinovirus, parainfluenza and RSV were also significant. Age and temporal distributions of the different viruses were typical. This study found that the co-detection of different respiratory viruses is not random and most associations are reciprocal, either positively or negatively. The pandemic strain of influenza A(H1N1) was notable in that it was the least likely to be co-detected with another respiratory virus.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCoinfectionEnglandFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceRespiratory Tract Infections

Identifiers

PMID22678349
PMCPMC7088042
OpenAlexW2083684199

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.