Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39534289›Full record

ArticleIranian journal of microbiology2024

Kumar Ebineshan, Michael Sukumar Pallapati, Aparna Srikantam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Iranian journal of microbiology, 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.

Kumar EbineshanDepartment of Microbiology, LEPRA - Society, Blue Peter Public Health and Research Center, Hyderabad, India.
Michael Sukumar PallapatiDepartment of Microbiology, LEPRA - Society, Blue Peter Public Health and Research Center, Hyderabad, India.
Aparna SrikantamDepartment of Microbiology, Mallareddy Medical College for Women, Hyderabad, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Leprosy foot ulcers (LFU) tend to become chronic due to secondary bacterial infections, leading to subsequent disfigurement and disability. Treatment modality for infected plantar ulcers thus so far is majorly based on conventional approach of empirical antibacterial therapy. However, this approach tends to overlook unconventional pathogens which are likely to be present in the LFU. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six leprosy patients (17 males and 9 females) who had completed multidrug therapy (MDT) and those are suffering from foot ulcer were included. Using sterile cotton swabs, two wound swabs were collected, of these; one for bacterial culture and another for NGS (Next Generation Sequencing). Results: Out of 26 samples tested on conventional bacterial culture, Conclusion: Polymicrobial infection with conventional and unconventional pathogenic bacteria is another notable finding suggesting appropriate interventions. The study findings also reiterate the need for understanding the polymicrobial infections and their role in the clinical progression of the LFU.

Indexed as

16S rRNAFoot ulcerLeprosyMicrobiomeNext generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID39534289
PMCPMC11551663

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.