ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2020
High Burden of
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Community Perspectives onInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Population genomic variation inMicrobial genomics · 2026Article
- Multi-strain carriage and intrahost diversity ofMicrobial genomics · 2025Article
- Infectious diseases in Indigenous populations in North America: learning from the past to create a more equitable future.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Article
- Unique Genomic Epidemiology of COVID-19 in the White Mountain Apache Tribe, April to August 2020, Arizona.mSphere · 2023Article
- Clinical Relevance of Xpert MRSA/SA in Guiding Therapeutic Decisions for Staphylococcal Infections: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2022Article
- Carriage prevalence and genomic epidemiology ofMicrobial genomics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was done to determine the burden of invasive
methodsActive population and laboratory-based surveillance for invasive
resultsFifty-three cases were identified. Most cases were adults (90.6%) and had ≥1 underlying medical condition (86.8%), the most common of which were diabetes (49.1%) and obesity (41.5%). A total of 26.4% cases were categorized as community acquired. Most infections were methicillin-resistant (75.5%). A total of 7.5% of cases required amputation, and 7.7% of cases died within 30 days of initial culture. The incidence of invasive
conclusionsThis community has a disproportionately high burden of invasive methicillin-resistant
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.