Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 210

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Case-Control Study of Acute Respiratory Tract Infection in General Practice Patients in The Netherlands

Open access
van Gageldonk-Lafeber, A. B., Heijnen, M.-L. A., Bartelds, A. I. M., Peters, M. F., van der Plas, S. M., Wilbrink, B.·2005·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are responsible for considerable morbidity in the community, but little is known about the presence of respiratory pathogens in asymptomatic individuals. We hypothesized that asymptomatic persons could have a subclinical infection and thus act as a source of transmission. METHODS: During the period of 2000-2003, all patients with ARTI who visited their sentinel general practitioner had their data reported to estimate the incidence of ARTI in Dutch general practices. A random selection of these patients (case patients) and an equal number of asymptomatic persons visiting for other complaints (control subjects) were included in a case-control study. Nose and throat swabs of participants were tested for a broad range of pathogens. RESULTS: The overall incidence of ARTI was 545 cases per 10,000 person-years, suggesting that, in the Dutch population, an estimated 900,000 persons annually consult their general practitioner for respiratory complaints. Rhinovirus was most common in case patients (24%), followed by influenza virus type A (11%) and coronavirus (7%). Viruses were detected in 58% of the case patients, beta -hemolytic streptococci group A were detected in 11%, and mixed infections were detected in 3%. Pathogens were detected in approximately 30% of control subjects, particularly in the youngest age groups. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that most ARTIs are viral and supports the reserved policy of prescribing antibiotics. In both case and control subjects, rhinovirus was the most common pathogen. Of bacterial infections, only group A beta-hemolytic streptococci were more common in case patients than in control subjects. Furthermore, we demonstrated that asymptomatic persons might be a neglected source of transmission.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/431982

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 210

Metadata

Authors
van Gageldonk-Lafeber, A. B., Heijnen, M.-L. A., Bartelds, A. I. M., Peters, M. F., van der Plas, S. M., & Wilbrink, B.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2005-08-15
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
490-497
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2101321064
Cited by
210
References
4
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Case-Control Study of Acute Respiratory Tract Infection in General Practice Patients in The Netherlands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/431982
The paper
van Gageldonk-Lafeber, A. B., Heijnen, M.-L. A., Bartelds, A. I. M., Peters, M. F., van der Plas, S. M., & Wilbrink, B. (2005). A Case-Control Study of Acute Respiratory Tract Infection in General Practice Patients in The Netherlands. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/431982

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.