ArticleMedicine2020
Distinguishment of parasite-infected children from pediatric inpatients with both eosinophilia and effusion.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with both serous effusion and eosinophilia are rarely reported and geographically distributed; their early diagnosis is difficult.According to the ultimate diagnosis, patients (≤14 years) in West China Second hospital with serous effusion and eosinophilia were divided into two groups including a parasitic group and a non-parasitic group. Clinical data were collected and analyzed between the two groups. Subsequently, significant measurement indicators were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to explore the optimal cut-off points for the most appropriate sensitivity and specificity.A total of 884 patients were diagnosed with serous effusion and 61 of them displayed co-morbidity with eosinophilia during enrolled time. Among 61 patients, 34 patients had parasitic infection and 27 had non-parasitic diseases. There were statistical difference in effusion position, the levels of white blood cell count (WBC), eosinophil (EOS), EOS%, C-reactive protein (CRP) between parasitic group and non-parasitic group. ROC curve demonstrated that the areas under the curve of EOS count and EOS% were >80%, and the corresponding optimal cut-off values were 1.71 × 10/L and 25.6% for distinguishing between parasitic and non-parasitic infections in our patients.This study provided a quantified index for potentially quick and convenient indicators of pediatric patients presenting with both eosinophilia and effusion. Eosinophils were helpful to improve the initial diagnosis with awareness of parasitic diseases. For the cases with EOS > 1.71 × 10/L or EOS% > 25.6%, parasitic infection should be considered and serological tests are recommended in our region.
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.