ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli: a single-center, 11-year pediatric experience.
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 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid and quantitative detection of Shiga toxin1 and Shiga toxin2 based on multiple targets UPT-LF assay.Engineering in life sciences · 2020Article
- Culture of Rectal Swab Specimens for Enteric Bacterial Pathogens Decreases Time to Test Result While Preserving Assay Sensitivity Compared to Bulk Fecal Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Glyco-iELISA: a highly sensitive and unambiguous serological method to diagnose STEC-HUS caused by serotype O157.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Article
- Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome: a clinical conundrum.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2016Article
- Real-Time PCR Assay for Detection and Differentiation of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli from Clinical Samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify the best practices for the detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in children with diarrheal illness treated at a tertiary care center, i.e., sorbitol-MacConkey (SMAC) agar culture, enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for Shiga toxin, or the simultaneous use of both methods. STEC was detected in 100 of 14,997 stool specimens submitted for enteric culture (0.7%), with 65 cases of E. coli O157. Among E. coli O157 isolates, 57 (88%) were identified by both SMAC agar culture and EIA, 6 (9%) by SMAC agar culture alone, and 2 (3%) by EIA alone. Of the 62 individuals with diarrheal hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) seen at our institution during the study period, 16 (26%) had STEC isolated from cultures at our institution and 15 (24%) had STEC isolated at other institutions. No STEC was recovered in 31 cases (50%). Of the HUS cases in which STEC was isolated, 28 (90%) were attributable to E. coli O157 and 3 (10%) were attributable to non-O157 STEC. Consistent with previous studies, we have determined that a subset of E. coli O157 infections will not be detected if an agar-based method is excluded from the enteric culture workup; this has both clinical and public health implications. The best practice would be concomitant use of an agar-based method and a Shiga toxin EIA, but a Shiga toxin EIA should not be considered to be an adequate stand-alone test for detection of E. coli O157 in clinical samples.
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.