ArticlePloS one2014
Etiology of maculopapular rash in measles and rubella suspected patients from Belarus.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Whole genome-based surveillance for human adenovirus-related diseases in Kobe City, Japan, 2018-2022.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- The period from prodromal fever onset to rash onset in laboratory-confirmed rubella cases: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Comprehensive surveillance data suggest a prominent role of parvovirus B19 infection in Belarus and the presence of a third subtype within subgenotype 1a.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- An evaluation of the clinical features of measles virus infection for diagnosis in children within a limited resources setting.BMC pediatrics · 2020Article
- Effects of COVID-19 on the laboratory turn-around time of vaccine-preventable disease surveillance: the case of measles in South Sudan.The Pan African medical journal · 2020Article
- Cutaneous involvement of disseminated adenovirus infection in an allogeneic stem cell transplant recipient.The British journal of dermatology · 2016Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a result of successful implementation of the measles/rubella elimination program, the etiology of more and more double negative cases remains elusive. The present study determined the role of different viruses as causative agents in measles or rubella suspected cases in Belarus. A total of 856 sera sent to the WHO National Laboratory between 2009 and 2011 were tested for specific IgM antibodies to measles virus (MV), rubella virus (RV) and human parvovirus B19 (B19V). The negatives were further investigated for antibodies to enterovirus (EV) and adenovirus (AdV). Children of up to 3 years were tested for IgM antibodies to human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6). A viral etiology was identified in 451 (52.7%) cases, with 6.1% of the samples being positive for MV; 2.6% for RV; 26.2% for B19V; 9.7% for EV; 4.6% for AdV; and 3.6% for HHV6. Almost all measles and rubella cases occurred during limited outbreaks in 2011 and nearly all patients were at least 15 years old. B19V, EV and AdV infections were prevalent both in children and adults and were found throughout the 3 years. B19V occurred mainly in 3-10 years old children and 20-29 years old adults. EV infection was most common in children up to 6 years of age and AdV was confirmed mainly in 3-6 years old children. HHV6 infection was mostly detected in 6-11 months old infants. Laboratory investigation of measles/rubella suspected cases also for B19V, EV, AdV and HHV6 allows diagnosing more than half of all cases, thus strengthening rash/fever disease surveillance in Belarus.
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.