ArticleTransplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society2017
Optimal strategies for the diagnosis of community-onset diarrhea in solid organ transplant recipients: Less is more.
Article in Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cryptosporidiosis in a Zoonotic Gastrointestinal Disorder Perspective: Present Status, Risk Factors, Pathophysiology, and Treatment, Particularly in Immunocompromised Patients.Journal of tropical medicine · 2024Review
- Infection prevention requirements for the medical care of immunosuppressed patients: recommendations of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) at the Robert Koch Institute.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2022Article
- Article
- Molecular Diagnostic Advances in Transplant Infectious Diseases.Current infectious disease reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiarrhea, a common complication after solid organ transplant (SOT), is associated with allograft failure and death. No evidence-based guidelines exist for the evaluation of diarrhea in SOT recipients. We performed a cost analysis to derive a testing algorithm for the diagnosis of community-onset diarrhea that minimizes costs without compromising diagnostic yields.
designA cost analysis was performed on a retrospective cohort of 422 SOT admissions for community-onset diarrhea over an 18-month period. A stepwise testing model was applied on a population level to assess test costs relative to diagnostic yields.
resultsOver an 18-month period, 1564 diagnostic tests were performed and 127 (8.1%) returned positive. Diagnostic testing accounted for $95 625 of hospital costs. The tests with the lowest cost per decrease in the false-omission rate (FOR) were stool Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ($156), serum cytomegalovirus quantitative PCR ($1529), stool norovirus (NV) PCR ($4673), and stool culture ($6804). A time-to-event analysis found no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between patients with and without NV testing (P=.520).
conclusionsA stepwise testing strategy can reduce costs without compromising diagnostic yields. In the first-stage testing, we recommend assessment for C. difficile, cytomegalovirus, and food-borne bacterial pathogens. For persistent diarrheal episodes, second-stage evaluation should include stool NV PCR, Giardia/Cryptosporidium enzyme immunoassay, stool ova and parasite, reductions in immunosuppressive therapy, and possibly endoscopy. Although NV testing had a relatively low cost per FOR, we recommend NV testing during second-stage evaluation, as an NV diagnosis may not lead to changes in clinical management or further reductions in length of hospital stay.
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.