Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24060961›Full record

ReviewVirulence2013

Hype or hypervirulence: a reflection on problematic C. difficile strains.

Wiep Klaas Smits

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Virulence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. AApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Clostridioides difficile Sporulation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Toxin gene profiles and antimicrobial resistance ofIranian journal of microbiology · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. AnMicrobial genomics · 2019
    Article
  17. Expanding theJournal of bacteriology · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wiep Klaas SmitsDepartment of Medical Microbiology; Leiden University Medical Center; Leiden, the Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) have emerged as a major cause of healthcare associated disease, and recent epidemiological evidence also suggests an important role in community-acquired diarrhea. This increase is associated with specific types, especially PCR ribotypes 027 and 078, which are sometimes referred to as "hypervirulent". Over the past years major advances have been made in our understanding of C. difficile pathogenicity, with the identification and characterization of the major clostridial toxins TcdA and TcdB. However, the relation between the toxins, their regulation, and "hypervirulence" remain unclear. Here I review our current understanding of C. difficile pathogenicity and argue that "hypervirulent" is an inadequate term to describe PCR ribotypes 027 and 078, that the ability of C. difficile to cause problematic infections is a consequence of a multifactorial process that extends beyond toxins, sporulation, and antimicrobial resistance, and that vigilance is in order toward types that are closely related to ribotypes 027 and 078, but are currently not considered problematic.

Indexed as

RibotypingClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsHumansVirulenceVirulence FactorsVirulence Factorsanti-sigma factorClostridium difficileepidemiclineagesporulationtoxin

Identifiers

PMID24060961
PMCPMC3906292
OpenAlexW2033006883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.