Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25471195›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2015

Molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of Clostridium difficile isolated from a university teaching hospital in Japan.

Y Kuwata, S Tanimoto, E Sawabe, M Shima, Y Takahashi, H Ushizawa, T Fujie, R Koike, N Tojo, T Kubota and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The fitness connection of antibiotic resistance.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Make It LessGenes · 2022
    Review
  8. Antimicrobial resistance in Clostridioides difficile.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Antimicrobial Resistance inMicrobiology spectrum · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Y KuwataDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Graduate School of Health Care Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan.
S Tanimoto
E Sawabe
M Shima
Y Takahashi
H Ushizawa
T Fujie
R Koike
N Tojo
T Kubota
R Saito

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection control strategies require an understanding of its epidemiology. In this study, we analysed the toxin genotypes of 130 non-duplicate clinical isolates of C. difficile from a university hospital in Tokyo, Japan. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and eBURST analysis were performed for these isolates and nine strains previously analysed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ribotyping. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined for six antibiotics, and the bacterial resistance mechanisms were investigated. Ninety-five toxigenic strains (73%), including seven tcdA-negative, tcdB-positive and cdtA/cdtB-negative strains (A(-)B(+)CDT(-)) and three A(+)B(+)CDT(+) strains, and 35 (27%) non-toxigenic strains, were classified into 23 and 12 sequence types, respectively. Of these, sequence type (ST)17 (21.8%) was the most predominant. MLST and eBURST analysis showed that 139 strains belonged to seven groups and singletons, and most A(+)B(+)CDT(-) strains (98%, 89/91) were classified into group 1. All isolates were susceptible to metronidazole, vancomycin and meropenem; the ceftriaxone, clindamycin and ciprofloxacin resistance rates were 49, 59 and 99%, respectively. Resistance rates to ceftriaxone and clindamycin were higher in toxigenic strains than in non-toxigenic strains (P < 0.001). All ST17 and ST81 strains were resistant to these antibiotics. The clindamycin- and fluoroquinolone-resistant strains carried erm(B) and mutations in GyrA and/or GyrB, respectively. To our knowledge, this is the first MLST-based study of the molecular epidemiology of toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains in Japan, providing evidence that non-toxigenic and toxigenic strains exhibit high genetic diversity and that toxigenic strains are more likely than non-toxigenic strains to exhibit multidrug resistance.

Indexed as

Molecular TypingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildChild, PreschoolClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsFemaleGenotypeHospitals, TeachingHospitals, UniversityHumansInfantAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

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.