Observational studyPediatric transplantation2019
Outcomes of human adenovirus infection and disease in a retrospective cohort of pediatric solid organ transplant recipients.
Observational study in Pediatric transplantation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adenovirus Disease Following Pediatric Liver Transplantation: 10-Year Experience From a Large Pediatric Transplant Program.Pediatric transplantation · 2026Article
- Adenovirus Infections and Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Incidence and Outcomes.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Adenovirus Infection in Hematopoietic and Solid Organ Paediatric Transplant Recipients: Treatment, Outcomes, and Use of Cidofovir.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- A quick algorithmic review on management of viral infectious diseases in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
- Isolation of a novel intertypic recombinant human mastadenovirus B2 from two unrelated bone marrow transplant recipients.New microbes and new infections · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Information about HAdV infection in SOT recipients is limited. We aimed to describe HAdV infection epidemiology and outcomes in a single-center retrospective cohort during the era of PCR availability. SOT recipients transplanted at the CHOP 2004-2013 were followed up for 180 days post-transplant. HAdV infection was defined as a positive HAdV PCR from a clinical specimen. HAdV disease was defined by organ-specific radiologic and/or laboratory abnormalities. No HAdV surveillance protocols were employed during the study period; testing was solely per clinician discretion. Progression of HAdV infection was defined as HAdV disease or ≥1-log viral load increase since a corresponding site's first positive specimen. Of the assembled 425 SOT recipients, 227 (52.6%) had ≥1 HAdV PCR. Twenty-four (10.6%) had ≥1 HAdV-positive PCR. HAdV-positive subjects were younger than uninfected subjects (2.0 years vs 6.5, P = 0.001). Infection incidence rates were highest in liver recipients (15.3%), followed by heart (8.6%), kidney (8.3%), and lung (4.2%). Four subjects (16.7%) met HAdV disease criteria at virus detection. Five subjects (20.8%) had progression of HAdV infection. All-cause mortality rates in positive and negative subjects were 0% and 3.9%, respectively. HAdV infection was infrequently detected in SOT recipients. Over one-third of HAdV-positive patients met disease criteria at detection or had infection progression, but none died. This low all-cause mortality raises questions about benefits of HAdV surveillance. Larger multicenter studies are needed to assess incidence variance by center and comparative effectiveness of therapeutic interventions.
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.