ArticleInfection and drug resistance2021
Rectal
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Manifestations and Associated Disease States withOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Etiological, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of sexually transmitted infections andFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have investigated rectal
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among individuals attending STD clinics located in China from June 2018 to August 2020. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore the association of different risk factors for rectal MG infection.
resultsA total of 1,382 patients were included in the final analyses. A total of 30 of 1377 rectal swabs (2.2%) and 77 of 1374 urogenital samples (5.6%) were positive for MG. In Guangxi, 18 of 47 patients (38.3%) infected with urogenital MG and 5 of 19 patients (26.3%) infected with rectal MG received the recommended treatment. Factors found to be significantly associated with rectal MG infection included: male (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.232, [95% CI: 0.072-0.745]) compared to female, homosexual or bisexual (AOR 40.427, [95% CI: 3.880-421.196]) compared to heterosexual, and those infected with urogenital MG (AOR 7.215, [95% CI: 2.898-17.965]) compared to those who did not get infected with urogenital MG.
conclusionRectal MG infection should be thought of not only in MSM population but also in STD clinic patients, especially females who have urogenital MG infection. Appropriate strategy for rectal MG screening and treatment needs to be developed for these patients in China.
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.