Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25986524›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2015

Hospitalized Patients with Cirrhosis Should Be Screened for Clostridium difficile Colitis.

Sammy Saab, Theodore Alper, Ernesto Sernas, Paridhima Pruthi, Mikhail A Alper, Vinay Sundaram

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022
    Review
  3. Disordered Intestinal Microbial Communities DuringFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  4. World journal of hepatology · 2021
    Article
  5. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Cirrhosis and C. difficile: A Deadly Duo?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2015
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sammy SaabDepartment of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. SSaab@mednet.ucla.edu.
Theodore AlperDepartment of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ernesto SernasDepartment of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Paridhima PruthiDepartment of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Mikhail A AlperGastroenterogy Associates, Fresno, CA, USA.
Vinay SundaramDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClostridium difficile infection (CDI) is an important public health problem in hospitalized patients. Patients with cirrhosis are particularly at risk of increased associated morbidity, mortality, and healthcare utilization from CDI.

aimThe aim of this study was to assess the pharmacoeconomic impact of CDI screening on hospitalized patients with cirrhosis.

methodsA Markov model was used to compare costs and outcomes of two strategies for the screening of CDI. The first strategy consisted of screening all patients for CDI and treating if detected (screening). In the second strategy, only patients found to have symptomatic CDI were treated (no screening). The probability of underlying CDI prevalence, symptomatic CDI infection, and likelihood of recurrent infection were varied in a sensitivity analysis. The costs of antibiotics and hospitalization were also assessed. Differences in outcome were expressed in ratio of the total costs associated with screening to the total costs associated without screening.

resultsThe results of our model showed that screening for CDI was consistently associated with improved healthcare outcomes and decreased healthcare utilization across all variables in the one- and two-way sensitivity analyses. Using baseline assumptions, the costs associated with the no screening strategy were 3.54 times that of the screening strategy. Moreover, the mortality for symptomatic CDI was lower in the screening strategy than the no screening strategy.

conclusionThe screening strategy results in less healthcare utilization and improved clinical outcomes. Screening for CDI measures favorably.

Indexed as

Cost SavingsMarkov ChainsAgedAnalysis of VarianceClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisCross InfectionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansIncidenceLength of StayLiver CirrhosisMaleAsymptomatic carriersC. Difficile screeningCost-effectivenessHospitalized patients

Identifiers

PMID25986524
OpenAlexW208644631

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.