ArticleBMC infectious diseases2017
A case report of septic shock syndrome caused by S. pneumoniae in an immunocompromised patient despite of vaccination.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Four-extremity amputation following disseminated intravascular coagulation and purpura fulminans.BMJ case reports · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and case presentationWe report a case of septic shock syndrome caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae in a patient who had undergone splenectomy due to an autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome (ALPS), which is characterized as a dysfunction of immunoregulation. Although the patient was vaccinated with a conjugated polysaccharide vaccine after the splenectomy, he was still susceptible to S. pneumoniae infection, because the isolated serovar (24F), a serovar long thought to be apathogenic, is not covered by any vaccine currently approved, neither a conjugated nor an unconjugated polysaccharide one.
conclusionsThis case demonstrates that, due to presence of different serovars, also infections with bacteria against which patients are vaccinated have to be considered as differential diagnosis. Although vaccine development has extended the coverage of S. pneumoniae from 7 to 23 serovars within recent years, there is still demand for novel vaccines which can provide broader protection also against so-thought "apathogenic" strains, especially for groups at high risk.
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.