ArticleJundishapur journal of microbiology2014
Status of pertussis in iran.
Article in Jundishapur journal of microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pertussis resurgence in iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis of seroimmunity and diagnostic evidence.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Hospital-based prospective study of pertussis in infants and close contacts in Tehran, Iran.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Article
- Old Disease and New Challenges: Major Obstacles of Current Strategies in the Prevention of Pertussis.Iranian journal of pediatrics · 2016Review
- The First Report of Epidemic Pertussis by Bahaodowle Razi From the 15th Century Anno Domini.Iranian Red Crescent medical journal · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPertussis is a respiratory and contagious disease which is mostly caused by Bordetella pertussis and B. parapertussis. It usually spreads from person to personduring the incubation or catarrhal phase of the disease. Despite of large-scale vaccination, whooping cough is still an endemic disease with several outbreaks.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of pertussis and identify its causative agents, B. pertussis or B. parapertussis, from specimens collected from Iranian patients from 2004 to 2008. PATIENTS AND
methodsNasopharyngeal swab samples from 347 suspected pertussis cases were collected from 18 provinces of Iran. The patients were in different age groups and were either unvaccinated or vaccinated for pertussis with whole cell vaccine (WCV). Bacterial culture, agglutination tests and quantitative PCR (qPCR) targeting IS481 and IS1001 for B. pertussis and B. parapertussis were done for every specimen, respectively.
resultsThe results showed that seven nasopharyngeal swab samples (2%) were positive for B. pertussis (1.7%) and B. parapertussis (0.3%) by culture and agglutination test and 30 patients had positive qPCR test results (9%).
conclusionsDespite the fact that bacterial culture is the golden standard for the detection of B. pertussis, direct detection of bacteria from nasopharyngeal specimens can be performed by a rapid qPCR assay. In this study, high percentage of positive qPCR cases may indicate that the patients might have recovered from pertussis following antibiotic treatment before samples were collected. Rapid detection by qPCR could be important for immediate diagnosis and treatment of patients with pertussis.
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.