ArticleEuropean journal of microbiology & immunology2014
Difficulties in species identification within the genus Haemophilus - A pilot study addressing a significant problem for routine diagnostics.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease harbour a variation of Haemophilus species.Scientific reports · 2018Trial
- Characterization ofOpen life sciences · 2018Article
- No development of ciprofloxacin resistance in the Haemophilus species associated with pneumonia over a 10-year study.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Observational
- Comparison of Established Diagnostic Methodologies and a Novel Bacterial smpB Real-Time PCR Assay for Specific Detection of Haemophilus influenzae Isolates Associated with Respiratory Tract Infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Difficult identification of Haemophilus influenzae, a typical cause of upper respiratory tract infections, in the microbiological diagnostic routine.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.