Evidence map›Paper›PMID 2650859›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews1989

Chancroid and Haemophilus ducreyi.

S A Morse

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 1989. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

99 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Complete reference genomes ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  5. Molecular pathogenesis ofMicrobiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2025
    Review
  6. The protein degradation system encoded byInfection and immunity · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Infections caused byClinical microbiology reviews · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

S A MorseSexually Transmitted Diseases Laboratory Program, Center for Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Haemophilus ducreyi is the causative agent of chancroid, one of the genital ulcerative diseases. H. ducreyi is the major cause of genital ulcer disease in Africa and Southeast Asia and is of increasing concern in the United States. Definitive diagnosis of chancroid requires the isolation and identification of H. ducreyi, but isolation of this organism is difficult and the available medium is not optimal for all strains. Fluorescent antibody and serologic tests are of limited value. In general, our knowledge of this organism is rather limited, and indeed, recent studies have questioned the placement of H. ducreyi in the genus Haemophilus. H. ducreyi has relatively few biochemical activities, and epidemiologic studies are limited because there are limited phenotypic markers available for strain typing. Specific virulence factors of H. ducreyi have yet to be identified. Antimicrobial resistance in H. ducreyi is of special concern, as this organism has acquired both gram-negative and gram-positive resistance determinants. In addition, some of these determinants can be mobilized and transferred to other Haemophilus species or to Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

Indexed as

ChancroidHaemophilus ducreyiAmino Acid SequenceAminopeptidasesAnimalsDrug Resistance, MicrobialHumansMolecular Sequence DataSerologic TestsVirulenceAminopeptidases

Identifiers

PMID2650859
PMCPMC358107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.