ArticleTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
Article in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. 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.
- Article
- Bacterial and fungal infections in persons who inject drugs.Clinical microbiology reviews · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rates of serious injection-related infections in persons who use drugs have increased. Resulting admissions are an opportunity for screening and vaccination of preventable infections such as hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and tetanus. Design and methods: We conducted a retrospective review of adults with documented substance use admitted for bacterial infection between July 2015 and March 2020. We evaluated HAV, HBV, and tetanus vaccination status at admission, along with screening for HAV and HBV infection and immunity. We identified the proportion of patients at risk for infection who received HAV, HBV, and tetanus vaccines during admission and patient-level factors associated with vaccination. Results: We identified 280 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Of the 198 (70.7%) patients at risk for HAV, infectious disease providers recommended vaccination for 21 (10.6%) and 15 (7.6%) received HAV vaccine. Of the 174 (62.1%) patients at risk for HBV, infectious disease providers recommended vaccination for 32 (18.3%) and 25 (14.4%) received HBV vaccine. A large proportion of patients (31.4%, 88) had no documentation of prior tetanus vaccination, and infectious disease providers recommended tetanus vaccination for three (1.1%) and five patients (1.8%) received a tetanus booster. Infectious disease consult vaccine recommendations were statistically significantly associated with HAV or HBV vaccination prior to discharge. Conclusion: Over 70% of our population is at risk for one or more of these preventable infections. Efforts are needed to maximize inpatient screening and vaccination for HAV, HBV, and tetanus in patients with barriers to care.
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.