ArticleJournal of tropical medicine2020
Molecular Characterization of
Article in Journal of tropical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global trends in macrolide and lincosamide resistance in Streptococcus species: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Global patterns of antibiotic resistance in group BFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Capsular Typing and Molecular Characterization of Streptococcus agalactiae Strains Isolated From Bovine Mastitis in Iran.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Molecular characterization of Streptococcus agalactiae strains isolated from pregnant women.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Colonization of Group BPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Epidemiological Characterization of Group B Streptococcus Infections in Alberta, Canada: An Update from 2014 to 2020.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGroup B streptococci (GBS) are globally recognized as one of the leading causes of neonatal sepsis and meningitis and is also known to cause adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirths and miscarriages. Thus, detailed investigation of GBS in pregnant women has special significance in public health related researches.
objectivesThe present study is aimed at evaluating the prevalence of GBS colonization among pregnant women in Kathmandu city.
methodsThe study was carried out among 125 pregnant women at their trimester (35-37 weeks) (during the time period between January and June in 2018). The prevalence was determined by the culture method in HiCrome Strep B Selective Agar Base and then by using the PCR technique. The serotypes were evaluated by multiplex PCR analysis, while the antibiotics susceptibility tests were performed using the disk diffusion method.
resultsAmong 125 samples studied, GBS were recorded in 24 samples (implying a prevalence of 19.2%). Furthermore, using the multiplex PCR, among 24 GBS-positive samples, 13 (54.17%) were found to be typeable while 11 (45.83%) were nontypeable. The most abundant serotype recorded in this study was type III (33.33) while the serotypes IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII were not found.
conclusionThe isolates were sensitive towards some antibiotics such as linezolid and ceftriaxone 100%, whereas penicillin 50% and vancomycin 75% but were resistant to tetracycline and ertapenem. Serotype III was found to be predominant in the samples collected during the study period. The observed prevalence was significantly associated with the gestational period, whereas no relationship was found for other risk factors.
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.