Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39651868›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025

Shedding new light on

Angela Ma, Blaine A Mathison, Marc Roger Couturier

Abstract readEvaluation StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Angela MaDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Blaine A MathisonDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9975-941X
Marc Roger CouturierDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-0664-1546

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cyclosporiasis has historically been underdiagnosed due to a lack of clinical recognition and challenges in laboratory detection. Microscopic detection of IMPORTANCE: This study is important as there is a dearth of studies in our field of clinical parasitology that investigate and establish performance characteristics of classic and newer, non-molecular methods. While these studies may not seem as heavy hitting as some new technologies described in our related disciplines, for our field, such studies are long overdue and critically lacking.

Indexed as

CyclosporaCyclosporiasisParasitologyFecesHumansMicroscopy, FluorescenceSensitivity and SpecificityStaining and LabelingUltraviolet RayscoccidiaCyclosporaCystoisosporaprotozoaUV microscopy

Identifiers

PMID39651868
PMCPMC11784448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.