ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2016
Increases in Entamoeba histolytica Antibody-Positive Rates in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected and Noninfected Patients in Japan: A 10-Year Hospital-Based Study of 3,514 Patients.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2016. 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.
- Clinical Features and Gut Microbiome of Asymptomatic Entamoeba histolytica Infection.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- Utility of the Rapid Antigen Detection Test E. histolytica Quik Chek for the Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection in Nonendemic Situations.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Ongoing transmission of Entamoeba histolytica among newly diagnosed people living with HIV in Taiwan, 2009-2018.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Article
- Seroprevalence ofBMJ open · 2020Article
- Discovery of Antiamebic Compounds That Inhibit Cysteine Synthase From the Enteric Parasitic ProtistFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serological evidence of the epidemiological trends in Entamoeba histolytica infection is scarce, especially in nonendemic countries. We aimed to determine the antibody-positive rates over a 10-year period, and compare the trends between human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected and -noninfected patients. We reviewed 3,514 patients who underwent antibody testing during the study periods, which were divided into five annual categories: 2004-2005, 2006-2007, 2008-2009, 2010-2011, and 2012-2013. Anti-E. histolytica antibody was assessed by indirect immunofluorescence assay. The antibody-positive rate increased yearly from 2004-2005 to 2012-2013 (P < 0.001), although there was no increase in the annual number of antibody tests. This trend was seen among males (18.6-28.3%; P < 0.01), females (5.4-28.2%; P < 0.01), HIV-infected patients (18.4-26.9%; P < 0.001), and non-HIV-infected patients (14.6-36.8%; P < 0.001), and HIV-infected men who have sex with men (19.4-29.1%; P < 0.001). Among antibody-positive patients, there was a significant increase in the proportion of patients with high (≥ 1,600) titers (0.7-12.9%; P < 0.001), whereas this trend was not seen in patients with low (100) or intermediate (200-800) titers (P = 0.282 and 0.409, respectively). This large hospital-based study demonstrated that positive anti-E. histolytica antibody rates increased over 10 years, even though the annual number of antibody tests remained constant. Moreover, this trend was identified in non-high-risk patients (females and non-HIV-infected patients) as well as in high-risk patients. The proportion of patients with high antibody titers significantly increased among the antibody-positive patients.
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.