Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24478500›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Impact of changes in Clostridium difficile testing practices on stool rejection policies and C. difficile positivity rates across multiple laboratories in the United States.

Jessica Cohen, Brandi Limbago, Ghinwa Dumyati, Stacy Holzbauer, Helen Johnston, Rebecca Perlmutter, John Dunn, Joelle Nadle, Carol Lyons, Erin Phipps and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Infection prevention and control ofJournal of global health · 2016
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States.The New England journal of medicine · 2015
    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

14 authors.

Jessica CohenAtlanta Research and Education Foundation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Brandi Limbago
Ghinwa Dumyati
Stacy Holzbauer
Helen Johnston
Rebecca Perlmutter
John Dunn
Joelle Nadle
Carol Lyons
Erin Phipps
Zintars Beldavs
Leigh Ann Clark
Fernanda C Lessa
CDC's Clostridium difficile Infection Surveillance Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe the adoption of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for Clostridium difficile diagnosis and their impact on stool rejection policies and C. difficile positivity rates. Of the laboratories with complete surveys, 51 (43%) reported using NAAT in 2011. Laboratories using NAAT had stricter rejection policies and increased positivity rates.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsFecesHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesOrganizational PolicyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24478500
PMCPMC3911329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.