ArticleGut pathogens2019
Shiga toxin producing
Article in Gut pathogens, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing antimicrobial resistance in Shiga toxin-producingFuture microbiology · 2026Article
- A Successful Approach to Diagnosing Shiga-like Toxin-ProducingDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prevalence, antimicrobial resistance, and genotyping of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in foods of cattle origin, diarrheic cattle, and diarrheic humans in Egypt.Gut pathogens · 2021Article
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiarrheagenic
methodsA prospective study was conducted between March and December 2016 among 722 children aged 1-30 months hospitalized with acute diarrhea. Stool samples obtained from patients with diarrhea were tested for the presence of Shiga toxin type 1 (STX1) and type 2 (STX2) by an immunochromatographic assay, and other enteropathogens. Demographic and clinical information on cases of HUS diagnosed in the same hospital was obtained from medical records.
resultsOverall 46/722 (6.4%) children (mean age 10.3 months, 32.6% females) hospitalized with diarrhea tested positive for STX1 or STX2; of these 79% were positive for both STX1 and STX2, 16% for STX2 only, and 5% for STX1 only. Bloody diarrhea, vomiting and fever were documented in 32.6%, 52.1% and 50.0%, respectively of patients with STEC infection. Eleven confirmed HUS cases (mean age 20 months, five females) were identified between 2014 and 2016 with prodromal diarrhea reported in 10 of them. Three of the 11 HUS patients required hemodialysis.
conclusionsSTEC prevalence among young children with diarrhea in Romania was high and the risk of HUS is emerging. The establishment of a systematic laboratory-based surveillance program including identification of the circulating STEC strains coupled with epidemiological investigation of HUS patients is warranted to determine the source and mode of transmission of STEC and prevent of STEC-associated diarrhea and HUS.
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.