A case of toxic megacolon secondary to Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea worsened after administration of an antimotility agent and molecular analysis of recovered isolates.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

1. [Diagnostic workup and therapy of infectious diarrhea. Current standards].Der Internist · 2015
   Guideline
2. Clostridium difficile infection.The American journal of the medical sciences · 2010
   Review
3. Univariate and multivariate analysis of risk factors for severe Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea: importance of co-morbidity and serum C-reactive protein.World journal of gastroenterology · 2008
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as