Evidence Hub

Clinical and laboratory features of pediatric Mycoplasma pneumoniae Pneumonia with viral versus bacterial co-infection

Zhu Y, Zhang X, Jin Y

Italian journal of pediatrics, 2026

392 participants

Abstract

Objective: To analyse the epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory differences among children, in Suzhou, with Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) mixed with viral or bacterial pneumonia and to provide evidence for early clinical differentiation and localised prevention.

Methods: This retrospective study included 392 children with Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) who were divided into an MPP mixed with viral pneumonia group (n = 254) and a bacterial pneumonia group (n = 138). Epidemiological characteristics, clinical manifestations, immune, coagulation, and inflammatory indicators, pathogen distribution, and bacterial drug susceptibility were compared.

Results: The MPP mixed with viral pneumonia group had older children [6 (3, 8) vs. 4 (2, 6.25) years, P = 0.001], a higher incidence of pneumonia in spring (51.97% vs. 18.12%, P < 0.001), and more crackles and fewer breath sounds (P < 0.05). The MPP mixed with bacterial group was more common in the summer and autumn, with a higher vomiting incidence (P = 0.021), higher C3 abnormal rate (P = 0.049) and greater procalcitonin elevation (P < 0.001). The MPP mixed with viral pneumonia group had higher level of serum amyloid A and D-dimer (P < 0.05). Human rhinovirus was the predominant virus (53.67%), and Streptococcus pneumoniae was the main bacterium (58.99%) with 100% Erythromycin resistance but high sensitivity to Penicillin G and Cefotaxime.

Conclusions: The two groups differed in age, season, clinical features, and several…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 392 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free