Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33199326›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2020

Sophie Kelly, Laura Waters, Muge Cevik, Simon Collins, Joe Lewis, Meng-San Wu, Tom J Blanchard, Anna M Geretti

Open access · diamondAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quantitative real time PCR for distinction betweenFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Trends in the Epidemiology ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Molecular and microscopy detection ofFrontiers in medicine · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Concurrent Infection with SARS-CoV-2 andJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Overview of COVID-19-Associated Invasive Fungal Infection.Current fungal infection reports · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Anti-PL-7 antisynthetase syndrome presenting as COVID-19.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie KellyUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK and Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Laura WatersMortimer Market Centre, London, UK.
Muge CevikUniversity of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Simon CollinsHIV i-Base, London, UK.
Joe LewisUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK and Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Meng-San WuRoyal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Tom J BlanchardUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK and Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Anna M GerettiUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK and Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK geretti@liverpool.ac.uk.
University of Liverpool · GBRoyal Liverpool University Hospital · GBMortimer Market Centre · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While clinical environments are highly focused on COVID-19, reports of missed or delayed treatment for conditions that imitate COVID-19, such as pneumonia caused by the fungus

Indexed as

AIDS-Related Opportunistic InfectionsPneumonia, PneumocystisCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Diagnosis, DifferentialFatal OutcomeHumansLungMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPneumocystis cariniiPneumonia, ViralCOVID-19HIVPCPPneumocystis jiroveciiSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33199326
PMCPMC7687333
OpenAlexW3099342428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.