Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39055278›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2024

Comparative seropositivity of

Sahel Vafai, Mardin Maroofi Naghadehi, Fatemeh Keshavarzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sahel VafaiDepartment of Biology, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran.
Mardin Maroofi NaghadehiInstitute of Clinical Medicine. N.V. Sklifosovsky, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Fatemeh KeshavarziDepartment of Biology, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1131-107X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Methods: Clinical samples (120 cases) were collected from pregnant women with a gestational age of less than 20 weeks. Diagnosis of Results: The number of positive samples by culture and ELISA was 24.16% (29) and 28.3% (34), respectively. Out of the 29 positive sample by the culture method, 10 individuals had no abortion history, 16 and 3 individuals had 1 and 2 abortions and no sample had 3 abortions. Maybe, the more abortions a person has had, the less likely they are to be infected. In the Enzyme Linked Immuno-Sorbent Assay (ELISA) method, 13 individuals tested positive for both IgG and IgM antibodies and 38 individuals tested negative. Additionally, among the positive individuals with 1, 2, and 3 miscarriages, 0, 17, and 3 people were positive for the IgG antibody and 0, 18, and 3 individuals were positive for the IgM antibody. The analysis results indicated that there was no significant relationship between culture and abortion history ( Conclusion: There was no significant relationship between infection with

Indexed as

abortionculture methodListeria monocytogenespregnant womenserological method

Identifiers

PMID39055278
PMCPMC11271089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.