ArticleInfectious diseases2015
Lack of Correlation between Bristol Stool Scale and Quantitative Bacterial Load in Clostridium difficile Infection.
Article in Infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting PPARγ-NF-κB: (+)-catechin reversesFuture microbiology · 2026Article
- Clinical Significance of Toxigenic Clostridioides difficile Growth in Stool Cultures during the Era of Nonculture Methods for the Diagnosis of C. difficile Infection.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
- Association Between Obesity and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Among Children and Adolescents: A Community-Based Study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Comparison of three current Clostridioides difficile infection guidelines: IDSA/SHEA, ESCMID, and ACG guidelines.Infection · 2019Review
- A pilot study to assess bacterial and toxin reduction in patients with Clostridium difficile infection given fidaxomicin or vancomycin.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decision to test for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is usually made when patients have loose stools with Bristol stool score of ≥5. We aimed to assess the relationship between bacterial load of C. difficile and Bristol stool scale, as well as stool frequency in stool samples collected from patients infected with the organism. Samples were collected at baseline, during therapy, and at the end of therapy. Spearman correlation test was used to evaluate these relationships. No correlation between Bristol stool scale and fecal load of C. difficile was found for both spores and vegetative cells at all time points as counts were persistently high (P = non-significant). Weak positive correlations were found between stool frequency and fecal load of C. difficile spores and vegetative cells (r s = 0.22 and 0.24, P = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). These findings indicate that quantitative colony counts were sufficiently high to detect C. difficile, irrespective of stool consistency, and suggest that semiformed stool should be sought for the pathogen in symptomatic patients with frequent stools.
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.