ArticleEpidemiology and infection2017
Impact on the medical decision-making process of multiplex PCR assay for respiratory pathogens.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nucleic Acid-based Testing for Noninfluenza Viral Pathogens in Adults with Suspected Community-acquired Pneumonia. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Guideline
- 2-year survival among elderly hospitalised for acute respiratory infectionEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020Article
- Predicting the microbial cause of community-acquired pneumonia: can physicians or a data-driven method differentiate viral from bacterial pneumonia at patient presentation?BMC pulmonary medicine · 2020Article
- Ten-year trends in intensive care admissions for respiratory infections in the elderly.Annals of intensive care · 2018Article
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
The objective of this study was to determine how clinicians make use of the modern multiplex PCR assays (MPAs) to manage patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We studied the use of MPAs in 1648 patients hospitalized for CAP over a 3-year period at the moment of the setup of the new PCR assay. We observed that the use of MPAs for the identification of multiple respiratory pathogens marks a radical change in the investigation of CAP etiology. Surprisingly, the contribution of MPAs to the medical decision-making process varies drastically according to the units of care.
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.