ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
PCR-based detection and molecular characterization of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli strains in a routine microbiology laboratory over 16 years.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Electrochemical aptasensor using boron-carbon nanorods decorated by nickel nanoparticles for detection of E. coli O157:H7.Mikrochimica acta · 2020Article
- Mapping of control measures to prevent secondary transmission of STEC infections in Europe during 2016 and revision of the national guidelines in Norway.Epidemiology and infection · 2019Article
- Article
- Shiga Toxin-ProducingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2018Article
- Twenty-seven years of screening for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in a university hospital. Brussels, Belgium, 1987-2014.PloS one · 2018Article
- Virulence factors of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and the risk of developing haemolytic uraemic syndrome in Norway, 1992-2013.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
- Shiga toxin-producing escherichia coli infections in Norway, 1992-2012: characterization of isolates and identification of risk factors for haemolytic uremic syndrome.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Assessing the public health risk of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli by use of a rapid diagnostic screening algorithm.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Molecular profiling of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and non-O157 strains isolated from humans and cattle in Alberta, Canada.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is a heterogeneous group of bacteria causing disease ranging from asymptomatic carriage and mild infection to hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Here, we describe patients with STEC infection and characterize the STEC strains detected in our laboratory by use of PCR for stx1, stx2, and eae from 1996 through 2011. Patient information was collected from referral forms and from the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases. STEC isolates were characterized with respect to serogroup or serotype, selected potential virulence genes, and multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA) genotype. STEC strains were isolated from 138 (1.09%) of 12,651 patients tested. STEC strains of serogroups O26, O103, O121, O145, and O157 were the most frequent. These serogroups, except non-sorbitol-fermenting O157, were also the most frequent among the 11 patients (all ≤5 years old) who developed HUS. Twenty-four STEC strains were classified as being HUS associated based on an epidemiological link to a HUS case, including an MLVA genotype identical to that of the STEC strain. The age of the patient (≤5 years) and the genes eae and stx2a were significantly associated with HUS-associated STEC (P < 0.05 for each parameter), while stx1 was associated with non-HUS-associated STEC (P < 0.05). All of the potential virulence genes analyzed, except ehxA, were significantly more frequent among HUS-associated than non-HUS-associated strains (P < 0.05 for each gene). However, these genes were also present in some non-HUS-associated STEC strains and could therefore not reliably differentiate between HUS-associated and non-HUS-associated STEC strains.
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.