ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2023
Association of the
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Draft genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026Article
- Survival and Behavior of Potential Emerging Foodborne PathogenFood science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Exploring tumour-microbe interactions: in vitro and in vivo modelling of Streptococcus bovis-induced colorectal carcinogenesis.Molecular biology reports · 2025Review
- Gut microbiota and colorectal cancer: mechanistic insights, diagnostic advances, and microbiome-based therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Infective Endocarditis of a Rare Etiology of Streptococcus alactolyticus: A Case Report and Literature Review.Cureus · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Invasive infection with Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for case-control studies as well as retrospective or prospective cohort studies reporting an association between SBSEC bacteria and colorectal neoplasia. Results: We identified 22 studies (15 case-control and 7 cohort) that met our inclusion criteria. Among the cohort studies, patients with SBSEC bacteremia were 3.73 times more likely to have underlying colorectal cancer compared with individuals with no bacteremia (relative risk [RR], 3.73; 95% CI, 2.79-5.01), whereas the risk of underlying colorectal adenoma in patients with SBSEC bacteremia was not significantly increased (RR, 5.00; 95% CI, 0.83-30.03). In case-control studies, patients with colorectal cancer were 2.27 times more likely to have evidence of intestinal or fecal colonization with SBSEC isolates (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.62) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody responses to SBSEC antigens (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.06-4.86) compared with controls. Patients with colorectal adenoma were not more likely to be colonized with SBSEC isolates compared with controls (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.55-2.25). Conclusions: Apart from the well-established association of SBSEC bacteremia and underlying colorectal cancer, intestinal or fecal colonization with SBSEC isolates and IgG antibody responses to SBSEC antigens were higher in patients with colorectal cancer compared with controls. Neither bacteremia from SBSEC isolates nor colonization with SBSEC bacteria was associated with underlying colorectal adenoma.
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.