Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41036356›Full record

ArticleOpen veterinary journal2025

Clinical

Ali A Kadhum, Mohammed H Khudor, Hanaa K Ibraheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open veterinary journal, 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.

Ali A KadhumDepartment of Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq.
Mohammed H KhudorDepartment of Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq.
Hanaa K IbraheimDepartment of Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Aim: This study showed the efflux pump mechanism of clinical Methods: Three hundred samples were collected, and the samples included: 150 nasal swabs from sheep and 150 sputum samples from humans. Through bacteriological and biochemical examinations. The isolates were identified Results: Of 150 sputum human specimens and 150 nasal swabs from sheep were tested, 25 and 17 Conclusion: All the isolates were resistant to antibiotics, and the bacterial isolates under study most possess the efflux pump mechanism. All bacteria also have efflux pump genes, and this gives the bacteria more resistance against many antibiotics.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialKlebsiella InfectionsKlebsiella pneumoniaeSheep DiseasesAnimalsHumansIraqMicrobial Sensitivity TestsRespiratory Tract InfectionsSheepSputumAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic resistanceEfflux pumpKlebsiella pneumoniae

Identifiers

PMID41036356
PMCPMC12483380

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.