Evidence Hub

Clinical characteristics of Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia in 145 children: a single-centre retrospective study

Wang Y, Huang T, Gao W, Liu Y, Shen W, Yang T, Yu H, Sun X

Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026

145 participants

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to summarize the clinical features of Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia in children.

Methods: We conducted a single-centre retrospective cross-sectional study by retrospectively collecting clinical data from 145 children diagnosed with Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia at Xi'an Children's Hospital, between January 1 and July 30, 2025. Demographic information, clinical manifestations, laboratory test results, pulmonary imaging findings, and treatment details were analyzed.

Results: Among the 145 children, 89 were male and 56 were female. The median age at onset was 11 years (IQR: 8.33-12.42), and the median disease duration was 14 days (IQR: 12-18). Cough was present in 144 cases (99.3%), with wet cough being predominant (141 cases, 97.2%). Fever was observed in 65 cases (44.8%), primarily low to moderate grade, with a median peak temperature of 38.5°C (IQR: 38.0-39.0). Nasal congestion was noted in 43 cases (29.7%), chest pain in 11 (7.6%), and both rash and hemoptysis in 5 cases each (3.4%). Laboratory results showed a median white blood cell count of 8.09 × 109/L (IQR: 6.43-9.58), a mean neutrophil of 4.65 × 109/L (IQR: 3.44-6.14), a mean lymphocyte of 2.41 × 109/L (IQR: 1.88-2.91), a median neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio of 1.95 (IQR: 1.32-2.99), and a median CRP level of 4.39 mg/L (IQR: 0.86-11.77). Unilateral lung involvement was observed in 109 cases, while bilateral involvement was seen in 36. Bronchoscopy was performed on 36 patients. Regarding…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 145 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