ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Clinical Insights into
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: This retrospective study identified 29 hospitalized patients with strongyloidiasis at Chaozhou Central Hospital between November 2018 and January 2026. We compared the clinical data of five patients with SPHS (SPHS group) and 21 patients with uncomplicated/chronic strongyloidiasis (non-SPHS group) and described the detailed clinical profiles of the five patients with SPHS. Results: All five SPHS patients (median age, 67; 4/5 were male) had diabetes mellitus, glucocorticoid exposure, rural soil contact, fever, and nonspecific pulmonary computed tomography (CT) abnormalities; four (4/5, 80%) had gastrointestinal and/or neurological manifestations and intestinal obstruction. All five patients had multisystem laboratory abnormalities without eosinophilia. Conclusion: In high-risk patients, normal or low eosinophil counts do not exclude SPHS. Early examination of respiratory specimens using microscopy and, when available, mNGS/tNGS may shorten the time to diagnosis. For these patients, early recognition of SPHS, antiparasitic therapy, and the management of bacterial coinfections are essential.
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.