Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9665977›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews1998

Campylobacter upsaliensis: waiting in the wings.

B Bourke, V L Chan, P Sherman

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Microorganisms · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Microorganisms · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Population Biology and Comparative Genomics of Campylobacter Species.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2021
    Review
  11. Comparison of the Pathogenic Potential ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Pathogenomics of EmergingClinical microbiology reviews · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

B BourkeDepartment of Paediatrics, University College Dublin, Ireland. bbourke@crumlin.ucd.ie
V L Chan
P Sherman
Hospital for Sick Children · CAOur Lady's Hospital · IEUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite strong epidemiological evidence supporting an important role for Campylobacter upsaliensis as a human enteropathogen, it remains relatively unknown in the realm of clinical microbiology. Clinical studies indicate that infection with this organism usually is associated with benign self-limiting diarrhea. However, more serious illnesses, including spontaneous abortion and hemolytic-uremic syndrome, recently have been associated with human infections. Understanding of the virulence properties and molecular biology of C. upsaliensis is beginning to evolve. There is now a pressing need for controlled, prospective epidemiologic studies in addition to further in-depth investigation of the pathogenesis of this enteric campylobacter to more precisely define its role in human disease. Furthermore, since C. upsaliensis is sensitive to the antibiotics routinely used in Campylobacter selective media, widespread appreciation of the importance of this organism will rely on the development of widely applicable, effective techniques for its isolation.

Indexed as

CampylobacterAdultAnimalsCampylobacter InfectionsChildDiarrheaDisease ReservoirsDogsFecesHumansZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID9665977
PMCPMC88890
OpenAlexW2158890987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.