ArticleJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology2015
Neuraminidase inhibitor therapy in a military population.
Article in Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of early neuraminidase inhibitor treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with influenza B-related pneumonia: a multicenter cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
- The Acute Respiratory Infection Consortium: A Multi-Site, Multi-Disciplinary Clinical Research Network in the Department of Defense.Military medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough neuraminidase inhibitors (NI) are the mainstay of treatment for influenza infection, prescribing practice for these agents is not well described. Additionally, benefit is contested.
objectivesWe examined provider prescriptions of NI during the 2009 pandemic and post-pandemic periods. We also evaluated the effectiveness of NI in reducing severity of influenza infection. STUDY
designData on NI prescription and severity of influenza infection were compiled in healthy pediatric and adult beneficiaries enrolled in a prospective study of influenza like illness conducted at five military medical centers over five years. Subjects underwent nasal swabs to determine viral etiology of their infection. Demographic, medication and severity data were collected. Subjects with positive influenza were included.
resultsTwo hundred sixty three subjects were influenza positive [38% [H1N1] pdm09, 38.4% H3N2, and 20.5% B); 23.9% were treated with NI. NI were initiated within 48h in 63% of treated subjects. Although NI use increased over the five years of the study, early use declined. Most measures for severity of illness were not significantly reduced with NI; adults treated within 48h had only a modest reduction in duration and severity of some of their symptoms.
conclusionsNI use in our population is increasing, but early use is not. NI use resulted in no reduction in complications of illness. Resolution of symptoms and reduction in severity of some symptoms were slightly better in adults who were treated early. These modest benefits do not support routine treatment with NI in otherwise healthy individuals with influenza.
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.