ArticleBMC pediatrics2020
Dried blood spots for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae detection and serotyping among children < 5 years old in rural Mozambique.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Whole-genome sequencing of non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae isolated from a tertiary care hospital in Surabaya, Indonesia.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Dried Blood and Cerebrospinal Fluid Filter Paper Spots for Storing and Transporting Clinical Material for the Molecular Diagnosis of Invasive Meningococcal Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis on the etiology of bacterial pneumonia in children in sub-Saharan Africa.Journal of public health in Africa · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDried blood spots (DBS) have been proposed as potentially tool for detecting invasive bacterial diseases.
methodsWe evaluated the use of DBS for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae detection among children in Mozambique. Blood for DBS and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from children with pneumonia and healthy aged < 5 years. Bacterial detection and serotyping were performed by quantitative PCR (qPCR) (NP and DBS; lytA gene for pneumococcus and hpd for H. influenzae) and culture (NP). Combined detection rates were compared between children with pneumonia and healthy.
resultsOf 325 children enrolled, 205 had pneumonia and 120 were healthy. Pneumococci were detected in DBS from 20.5 and 64.2% of children with pneumonia and healthy, respectively; NP specimens were positive for pneumococcus in 80.0 and 80.8%, respectively. H. influenzae was detected in DBS from 22.9% of children with pneumonia and 59.2% of healthy; 81.4 and 81.5% of NP specimens were positive for H. influenzae, respectively.
conclusionDBS detected pneumococcal and H. influenzae DNA in children with pneumonia and healthy. Healthy children were often DBS positive for both bacteria, suggesting that qPCR of DBS specimens does not differentiate disease from colonization and is therefore not a useful diagnostic tool for children.
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.