Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29784027›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2018

Recommendations for application of Haemophilus influenzae PCR diagnostics to respiratory specimens for children living in northern Australia: a retrospective re-analysis.

Jemima Beissbarth, Michael J Binks, Robyn L Marsh, Anne B Chang, Amanda J Leach, Heidi C Smith-Vaughan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Jemima BeissbarthMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, PO Box 41096, Casuarina, NT, 0811, Australia. jemima.beissbarth@menzies.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1154-230X
Michael J BinksMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, PO Box 41096, Casuarina, NT, 0811, Australia.
Robyn L MarshMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, PO Box 41096, Casuarina, NT, 0811, Australia.
Anne B ChangMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, PO Box 41096, Casuarina, NT, 0811, Australia.
Amanda J LeachMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, PO Box 41096, Casuarina, NT, 0811, Australia.
Heidi C Smith-VaughanMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, PO Box 41096, Casuarina, NT, 0811, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHaemophilus haemolyticus can be misidentified as nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) due to their phenotypic similarities in microbiological culture. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of misidentified NTHi in respiratory specimens from children living in northern Australia.

resultsAmong respiratory specimens collected in studies between 2010 and 2013, retrospective PCR analysis found that routine culture misidentified H. haemolyticus as NTHi in 0.3% (3/879) of nasal specimens, 25% (14/55) of bronchoalveolar lavage and 40% (12/30) of throat specimens. Therefore, in this population, PCR-based NTHi diagnostics are indicated for throat and bronchoalveolar specimens, but not for nasal specimens.

Indexed as

AustraliaChildChild, PreschoolFemaleGuidelines as TopicHaemophilus InfectionsHaemophilus influenzaeHumansInfantMalePolymerase Chain ReactionRespiratory Tract InfectionsRetrospective StudiesHaemophilus haemolyticus (Hh)Nasopharynx, bronchoalveolar lavageNontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi)

Identifiers

PMID29784027
PMCPMC5963172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.