ArticleNew microbes and new infections2020
Article in New microbes and new infections, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distribution ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2025Review
- Detection ofNew microbes and new infections · 2023Article
- Cryptogenic hepatitis patients have a higher Bartonella sp.-DNA detection in blood and skin samples than patients with non-viral hepatitis of known cause.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Distribution of Tick-Borne Pathogens in Domestic Animals and Their Ticks in the Countries of the Mediterranean Basin between 2000 and 2021: A Systematic Review.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Molecular epidemiology of certain vector-borne bacterial microorganisms in domestic animals and their ectoparasites in Egypt.Tropical animal health and production · 2021Article
- Role of Zoo-Housed Animals in the Ecology of Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens-A Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Detection of Bartonella henselae DNA in the blood of patients with livedoid vasculopathy.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Testing for vector-borne pathogens in livestock is largely reliant upon blood and tissue. The role of biopsy samples remains poorly explored for detecting tick-borne bacteria in animals. In a 2-year survey, animals of veterinary importance from farms throughout the northern part of Greece were routinely checked for the presence of biopsy samples. Where detected, either a portion or a biopsy was collected together with whole blood samples and any ticks at the site of the biopsy sample. Molecular testing was carried out by real-time PCR targeting the internal transcribed spacer gene of
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.