ArticleScientific reports2018
Trends in Q fever serologic testing by immunofluorescence from four large reference laboratories in the United States, 2012-2016.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: A rare case of ANCA-positive Q fever endocarditis-associated glomerulonephritis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Q Fever-Related Community Infections: United States Exposure toPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Longitudinal surveillance ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Review
- Tracking the Source of Human Q Fever from a Southern French Village: Sentinel Animals and Environmental Reservoir.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- High endemicity of Q fever in French Guiana: A cross sectional study (2007-2017).PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Article
- Validation of a Novel Commercial ELISA Test for the Detection of Antibodies againstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Analysis of recombinant proteins for Q fever diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Transmission ofEpidemiology and infection · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory testing for Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) is essential for a differential diagnosis, yet little is known about Q fever diagnostic testing practices in the United States. We retrospectively analyzed Q fever immunoglobulin G (IgG) indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) testing data between 1/1/2012-10/31/2016 from ARUP, LabCorp, Mayo Medical Laboratories, and Quest Diagnostics. Data included IgG phase I and phase II titers, patient age and sex, and state and date of specimen collection. On average, 12,821 specimens were tested for Q fever annually by the participating laboratories. Of 64,106 total specimens, 84.1% tested negative for C. burnetii-specific antibodies. Positive titers ranged from 16 to 262,144 against both phase I and phase II antigens. Submission of specimens peaked during the summer months, and more specimens were submitted from the West North Central division. Testing occurred more frequently in males (53%) and increased with age. In conclusion, few U.S. Q fever cases are reported, despite large volumes of diagnostic specimens tested. Review of commercial laboratory data revealed a lack of paired serology samples and patterns of serology titers that differ from case reporting diagnostic criteria.
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.