Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37964217›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2023

ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emily Ana Butler, Rushil Parikh, Sonia M Grandi, Joel G Ray, Eyal Cohen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Differences in maternal-newborn ABO blood groups and risk of serious infant infection.QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians · 2024
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emily Ana ButlerInstitute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rushil ParikhDepartment of Health Sciences, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Sonia M GrandiChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joel G Ray *Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Eyal Cohen *Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. eyal.cohen@sickkids.ca.
University of Toronto · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAWilfrid Laurier University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersons with non-O and Rh-positive blood types are purported to be more susceptible to infection, including SARS-CoV-2, but there remains uncertainty about the degree to which this is so for both non-viral and viral infections.

methodsWe systematically reviewed Embase and PubMed from January 1

resultsNon-O blood groups had a higher OR

conclusionsNon-O and Rh-positive blood status are each associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to other viral and non-viral infections.

Indexed as

Blood Group AntigensCOVID-19Case-Control StudiesDisease SusceptibilityHumansSARS-CoV-2Blood Group AntigensABOInfectionMeta-analysisRh(D)SARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37964217
PMCPMC10647048
OpenAlexW4388653789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.