ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2020
Invasive
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- First year of ongoing invasiveEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026Article
- Research progress on the current status of respiratory pathogen infections and their detection methods.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Infant protection from invasiveHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Antibiotic resistance and molecular characterization of non-invasive clinicalJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
- Prevalence of piperacillin/tazobactam resistance in invasiveJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
- Article
- High Prevalence of Group III-Like Mutations Among BLPACR and First Report ofInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Impact of a Single-Tube PCR Assay for the Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Invasive Haemophilus influenzae Infections after 3 Decades of Hib Protein Conjugate Vaccine Use.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2021Review
- Long Term Impact of Conjugate Vaccines onMicroorganisms · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsNationwide data from statutory disease surveillance (2001-2016) were linked with laboratory surveillance data (2009-2016). Besides descriptive epidemiology, statistical analyses included multiple imputation to estimate secular trends.
resultsIn 2001-2016, 4044 invasive Hi infections were reported. The mean incidence was 3.0 per million inhabitants, higher in males (3.2 vs 2.9 in females) and in the age groups <1 year (15.2) and ≥80 years (15.5). Nontypeable Hi (NTHi) caused 81% (n = 1545) of cases in 2009-2016. Of capsulated cases, 69% were serotype f and 17% serotype b. Of Hib cases eligible for vaccination, 10% (3/29) were fully vaccinated. For 2009-2016, significant increasing trends were observed for NTHi and Hif infections in the age groups <5 years and ≥60 years and for ampicillin resistance in NTHi.
conclusionsThis is one of the most comprehensive Hi data analyses since the introduction of Hib vaccines. NTHi and Hif cause an increasing disease burden among elderly patients and infants. Ampicillin resistance in NTHi must be considered in the treatment of invasive Hi infections.
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.