Fecal-Free Toxin Detection Remains the Best Way to Detect Clostridium difficile Infection.

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. Faecal lactoferrin and calprotectin in patients with Clostridium difficile infection: a case-control study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017
   Article
2. Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2016
   Review
3. Reply to Planche et al.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to Planche et al.2015
• Comment on
  Clostridium difficile ribotype 027: relationship to age, detectability of toxins A or B in stool with rapid testing, severe infection, and mortality.2015

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as