ArticlePloS one2024
Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli in mid-Norway: A prospective, case control study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- EnteroaggregativeEcoSal Plus · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of molecular methods has led to increased detection of Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC) in faecal samples. Studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the clinical relevance of this finding. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of EAEC in faecal samples from patients with diarrhoea and healthy controls and describe characteristics of EAEC positive persons.
methodsFrom March 1st, 2017 to February 28th, 2019, we investigated all consecutive faecal samples from patients with diarrhoea received at the laboratory and collected faecal samples from randomly invited healthy controls from mid-Norway. Real-time multiplex PCR was used for detection of bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens. We registered sex, age, urban versus non-urban residency, and travel history for all participants. Statistical analyses were performed with Pearson chi-squared test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsWe identified EAEC in 440 of 9487 (4.6%) patients with diarrhoea and 8 of 375 (2.2%) healthy controls. The EAEC prevalence was 19.1% among those with diarrhoea and recent foreign travel and 2.2% in those without travel history independent of diarrhoea. Concomitant pathogens were detected in 64.3% of EAEC-positive patients with diarrhoea. The median age was 28.5 in those with EAEC-positive diarrhoea and 38 in those with EAEC-negative diarrhoea (p <0.01). In patients with diarrhoea, travel was reported in 72% of those with EAEC and concomitant pathogens, and 54% and 12% in those with only EAEC and no EAEC, respectively (p <0.01).
conclusionsEAEC was a common detection, particularly in patients with diarrhoea and recent international travel, and was found together with other intestinal pathogens in the majority of cases. Our results suggest that domestically acquired EAEC is not associated with diarrhoea. Patients with EAEC-positive diarrhoea and concomitant pathogens were young and often reported recent travel history compared to other patients with diarrhoea.
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.