Editorial commentary: Host-pathogen interactions in Clostridium difficile infection: it takes two to tango.

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. Host response to Clostridium difficile infection: Diagnostics and detection.Journal of global antimicrobial resistance · 2016
   Review
2. Measuring the impact of Clostridium difficile Infection with the NAP1 strain on severity and mortality.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2014
   Article
3. An Observational Cohort Study ofmSphere
   Observational

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  NAP1 strain type predicts outcomes from Clostridium difficile infection.2014

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as