ReviewClinics in laboratory medicine2010
Clostridium difficile.
Review in Clinics in laboratory medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment and Comparison of High-Throughput Immunoassays for Quantifying Clostridioides difficile Infection Biomarkers.Biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- The Incidence ofDiseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Examining the Extent of Contamination, Antibiotic Resistance, and Genetic Diversity ofBioMed research international · 2023Article
- Review
- Navigating changes inJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Review
- Clostridium Difficile Infection in Patients Impact Suspected Cytomegalovirus Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Materia socio-medica · 2020Article
- Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile) infection in the critically ill: an expert statement.Intensive care medicine · 2020Review
- Article
- Controversies Around Epidemiology, Diagnosis and Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection.Drugs · 2015Review
- Clinical update for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2014Review
- A simulation-based assessment of strategies to control Clostridium difficile transmission and infection.PloS one · 2013Article
- Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Clostridium difficile has re-emerged as a major hospital-acquired infection since 2001. Despite development of polymerase chain reaction-based testing, no single clinical diagnostic test has emerged with sufficient sensitivity, specificity, and turnaround time to be entirely reliable for disease diagnosis. The importance of C difficile acquired outside the hospital environment remains an unknown factor and awaits further epidemiologic investigation. This article discusses the changing epidemiology, clinical presentation, and pathogenesis of C difficile infection and highlights the ongoing challenges of laboratory diagnosis, treatment, and disease relapse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.