ArticleBMC infectious diseases2015
Characterization of the extent of a large outbreak of Legionnaires' disease by serological assays.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- PCR method for the rapid detection and discrimination of Legionella spp. based on the amplification of pcs, pmtA, and 16S rRNA genes.Journal of applied genetics · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn May 2005, a long-distance outbreak of Legionnaires' disease (LD) caused by Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 occurred in south-east Norway. The initial outbreak investigation without serology identified 56 laboratory-confirmed LD cases of whom 10 died. However, 116 patients with community-acquired pneumonia might belong to the outbreak based on epidemiological investigations, but acute laboratory tests other than serology were negative or not performed. To assess the true extent of the outbreak, we evaluated two serological assays in order to reclassify the 116 patients with indeterminate case status.
methodsTwo polyvalent antibody tests, a serogroup 1-6 immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and a serogroup 1-7 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were used. They were evaluated with cases defined as culture- or urinary antigen positive LD patients (n=40) and non-cases defined as confirmed non-LD patients (n=39) and healthy control subjects (n=62). The 116 patients, who were negative in culture, polymerase chain reaction and/or urinary antigen tests, were analysed by the same serological assays. Antibodies to the outbreak strain were determined by immunoblotting.
resultsIn the evaluation study, the sensitivity and specificity of a ≥4-fold IFA titre change was 38% and 100%, respectively, with corresponding values of 30% and 99% for seroconversion in ELISA. A single high positive IFA titre yielded sensitivity and specificity of 73% and 97%, respectively, with corresponding values of 68% and 96% for a single high immunoglobulin (Ig) G and/or IgM in ELISA. Based on this evaluation, the following serological testing identified 47 more LD cases, and the outbreak thus comprised 103 cases with a case fatality rate of 10%. About the same proportion (70%) of the urinary antigen positive and negative LD cases had antibodies to the serogroup-specific lipopolysaccharide of the outbreak strain. In addition to the 103 LD cases, Legionella infection could not be verified or excluded in 32 patients based on epidemiology and/or lack of microbiological sampling.
conclusionsThe acute-phase tests (culture, polymerase chain reaction, and urinary antigen) identified less than 55% of the 103 patients in this outbreak. Serological testing thus remains an important supplement for diagnosis of LD and for determination of outbreak cases.
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.