ArticleIDCases2026
Rat bite fever presenting as localized cellulitis: The first documented presumptive case from Nepal and a call for clinical awareness.
Article in IDCases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rat bite fever (RBF) is a rare but potentially fatal zoonotic disease caused by Streptobacillus moniliformis or Spirillum minus. In Asia, it is often caused by Spirillum minus and may present with atypical clinical features that complicate diagnosis. Case presentation: A 35-year-old female from Far-Western Nepal developed fever and progressive localized swelling of the right hand eight days after a rat bite. Classic systemic features like rash, polyarthritis, and lymphadenopathy were absent. Laboratory tests showed neutrophilia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated CRP, while blood culture was negative. Despite negative microbiological result, a presumptive diagnosis of S. minus RBF was made based on epidemiological context, incubation period, and clinical presentation. She was treated with a combination of intravenous ampicillin, doxycycline and surgical wound debridement. She completed a course of oral antibiotics and recovered fully. Conclusion: This case represents the first documented presumptive case of Spirillum minus RBF in Nepal, which presented atypically. It underscores the importance of clinical suspicion over microbiological confirmation in diagnosing RBF and emphasizes considering RBF in the differential diagnosis of febrile patients with cellulitis and a history of rodent exposure. Early initiation of empiric antibiotic therapy and timely surgical intervention can prevent serious complications. This case highlights RBF as an under-recognized zoonotic disease in Nepal and the need for greater clinical awareness and strengthened public health measures focused on rodent control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.