Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25986528›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2015

The Risks of Incident and Recurrent Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea in Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Parkpoom Phatharacharukul, Charat Thongprayoon, Wisit Cheungpasitporn, Peter J Edmonds, Pailin Mahaparn, Jackrapong Bruminhent

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Risk factors forJournal of global health · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Molecular epidemiology ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  5. Burden and Mortality Outcomes ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Derivation and internal validation of the multivariate toxigenicAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024
    Article
  12. Le infezioni in medicina · 2024
    Review
  13. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  14. Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  15. World journal of hepatology · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Journal of clinical medicine · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Parkpoom PhatharacharukulDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Charat ThongprayoonDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Wisit CheungpasitpornDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. wcheungpasitporn@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9954-9711
Peter J EdmondsSUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Pailin MahaparnDivision of Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jackrapong BruminhentDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the risks of incident and recurrent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis.

methodsA literature search was performed from inception to February 2015. Studies that reported relative risks, odds ratios, or hazard ratios comparing the risks of C. difficile-associated diarrhea in patients with CKD or ESRD versus those without CKD or ESRD were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effect, generic inverse variance method.

resultsTwenty studies (nine case-control, seven cohort, and four cross-sectional studies with 162,218,041 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RRs of C. difficile-associated diarrhea in patients with CKD and ESRD were 1.95 (95% CI 1.81-2.10) and 2.63 (95% CI 2.04-3.38), respectively. When meta-analysis was limited only to cohort and case-control studies with confounder-adjusted analysis, the pooled RRs of C. difficile-associated diarrhea in patients with CKD and ESRD were 1.89 (95% CI 1.75-2.05) and 2.50 (95% CI 1.49-4.17), respectively. The pooled RR of recurrent C. difficile-associated diarrhea in patients with CKD was 2.61 (95% CI 1.53-4.44). Data on the risk of recurrent C. difficile-associated diarrhea were limited.

conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates significantly increased risks of incident and recurrent C. difficile-associated diarrhea in patients with CKD. Furthermore, the magnitude of increased risk of C. difficile-associated diarrhea in ESRD patients is even higher.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCase-Control StudiesClostridioides difficileComorbidityDrug Therapy, CombinationEnterocolitis, PseudomembranousFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceKidney Failure, ChronicMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceRenal DialysisRenal Insufficiency, ChronicAnti-Bacterial AgentsC. difficileC. diff infectionChronic kidney diseaseClostridium difficileClostridium difficile-associated colitisDialysisDiarrheaEnd-stage kidney diseaseInfectionInfectious diseaseMeta-analysis

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.