ArticleBMC infectious diseases2016
Comparison of the first three waves of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus circulation in the mainland of the People's Republic of China.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bayesian phylodynamics reveals the transmission dynamics of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus at the human-live bird market interface in China.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Molecular epidemiologic characteristics of hemagglutinin from five waves of avian influenza A (H7N9) virus infection, from 2013 to 2017, in Zhejiang Province, China.Archives of virology · 2021Article
- Spatial and temporal clusters of avian influenza a (H7N9) virus in humans across five epidemics in mainland China: an epidemiological study of laboratory-confirmed cases.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Certainty of success: three critical parameters in coronavirus vaccine development.NPJ vaccines · 2020Review
- The epidemic potential of avian influenza A (H7N9) virus in humans in mainland China: A two-stage risk analysis.PloS one · 2019Article
- Comparison of the three waves of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus circulation since live poultry markets were permanently closed in the main urban areas in Zhejiang Province, July 2014-June 2017.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2018Article
- Article
- Changing Geographic Patterns and Risk Factors for Avian Influenza A(H7N9) Infections in Humans, China.Emerging infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Improvement of a rapid diagnostic application of monoclonal antibodies against avian influenza H7 subtype virus using Europium nanoparticles.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Epidemiology of avian influenza A H7N9 virus in human beings across five epidemics in mainland China, 2013-17: an epidemiological study of laboratory-confirmed case series.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Emerging Infectious Diseases and Blood Safety: Modeling the Transfusion-Transmission Risk.Transfusion medicine reviews · 2017Review
- Novel influenza A viruses and pandemic threats.Lancet (London, England) · 2017Article
- The PB2 mutation with lysine at 627 enhances the pathogenicity of avian influenza (H7N9) virus which belongs to a non-zoonotic lineage.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
- Sudden increase in human infection with avian influenza A(H7N9) virus in China, September-December 2016.Western Pacific surveillance and response journal : WPSARArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundH7N9 human cases were first detected in mainland China in March 2013. Circulation of this virus has continued each year shifting to typical winter months. We compared the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics for the first three waves of virus circulation.
methodsThe first wave was defined as reported cases with onset dates between March 31-September 30, 2013, the second wave was defined as October 1, 2013-September 30, 2014 and the third wave was defined as October 1, 2014-September 30, 2015. We used simple descriptive statistics to compare characteristics of the three distinct waves of virus circulation.
resultsIn mainland China, 134 cases, 306 cases and 219 cases were detected and reported in first three waves, respectively. The median age of cases was statistically significantly older in the first wave (61 years vs. 56 years, 56 years, p < 0.001) compared to the following two waves. Most reported cases were among men in all three waves. There was no statistically significant difference between case fatality proportions (33, 42 and 45%, respectively, p = 0.08). There were no significant statistical differences for time from illness onset to first seeking healthcare, hospitalization, lab confirmation, initiation antiviral treatment and death between the three waves. A similar percentage of cases in all waves reported exposure to poultry or live poultry markets (87%, 88%, 90%, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of severe disease between the each of the first three waves of virus circulation. Twenty-one clusters were reported during these three waves (4, 11 and 6 clusters, respectively), of which, 14 were considered to be possible human-to-human transmission.
conclusionThough our case investigation for the first three waves found few differences between the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics, there is continued international concern about the pandemic potential of this virus. Since the virus continues to circulate, causes more severe disease, has the ability to mutate and become transmissible from human-to-human, and there is limited natural protection from infection in communities, it is critical that surveillance systems in China and elsewhere are alert to the influenza H7N9 virus.
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.