Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24883195›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of microbiology & immunology2014

Difficulties in species identification within the genus Haemophilus - A pilot study addressing a significant problem for routine diagnostics.

H Frickmann, A Podbielski, A Essig, N G Schwarz, A E Zautner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of microbiology & immunology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Characterization ofOpen life sciences · 2018
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors.

H Frickmann
A Podbielski
A Essig
N G Schwarz
A E Zautner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic misidentifications of commensalic Haemophilus haemolyticus as pathogenic Haemophilus influenzae are frequent. This pilot study evaluates whether isolations of H. haemolyticus are frequent enough in Germany to cause a relevant diagnostic problem, considering the fact that even H. influenzae is a mere colonizer in about 30% of isolations. In microbiological laboratories of two hospitals located in Northern and Southern Germany, the distribution of Haemophilus spp. was analyzed during a six-month-period. Site of infection, sex, and age of the patients was taken into consideration. A total of 77 Haemophilus spp. isolates was acquired and discriminated on species level, comprising: 48 H. influenzae, 25 Haemophilus parainfluenzae, 3 H. haemolyticus, and 1 Haemophilus parahaemolyticus. The proportion of H. haemolyticus was calculated to range between 1.2% and 16.2 % within the 95% confidence limits. Commensalic Haemophilus spp. were isolated from oropharynx-associated sites only. H. influenzae, in contrast, was detected in clinically relevant materials like lower respiratory materials and conjunctiva swabs. Altogether, there was a low proportion of clinical H. haemolyticus isolates. Accordingly, the problem of unnecessary antibiotic therapies due to misidentifications of H. haemolyticus as H. influenzae is quantitatively negligible compared with the risk of confusing H. influenzae colonizations with infections.

Indexed as

antibiotic therapyepidemiologyGermanyHaemophilus influenzamisidentificationupper respiratory tract infection

Identifiers

PMID24883195
PMCPMC4029288

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.