ReviewMolecular biology reports2025
Atypical pathogen community-acquired pneumonia: an analysis of clinical characteristics, drug treatment, and prognosis in the related patients.
Review in Molecular biology reports, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSerious respiratory infections can occur in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings. These infections are known as community-acquired pneumonias (CAPs). Streptococcus pneumoniae and other microorganisms commonly cause atypical pneumonia. This study examined the clinical features, medication therapy, and prognosis of 85 cases of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) caused by Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MPP) and Chlamydia psittaci(C. psittaci)neumoniae (CPP).
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted at Shaoxing People's Hospital from July 2021 to August 2024, using targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF). Patients were classified into the MPP group (54 patients) and the CPP group (31 patients). Compared with the control group, the CPP group had a significantly lower proportion of patients with a contact history of poultry and birds, a shorter length of hospital stay, and a lower percentage of severe pneumonia cases.
resultsThe MPP group demonstrated higher incidences of cough and sputum production; conversely, the occurrences of fever, fatigue, diminished appetite, and generalised myalgia were comparatively lower. The MPP group exhibited markedly diminished levels of neutrophils, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, heparin-binding protein, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, direct bilirubin, pH, lactic acid, and D-dimer compared with the CPP group. In contrast, the MPP group had a markedly higher lymphocyte count, platelet count, albumin levels, as well as higher concentrations of blood sodium and blood chloride. The drug treatment regimens differed between the two groups, resulting in one unfavourable outcome within the MPP group.
conclusionIn summary, fatigue, fever, and reduced appetite are more prominent symptoms in patients with CPP, whereas cough and sputum production are the primary manifestations of MPP. Pleural effusion is more prevalent in patients with CPP, Additionally, these patients also have increased inflammatory responses and decreased immune function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40085176What 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.