ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2017
Nagging Presence of
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2017. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Antibiotic associated diarrhea due toIranian journal of microbiology · 2023Article
- Metagenomics reveals impact of geography and acute diarrheal disease on the Central Indian human gut microbiome.Gut microbes · 2020Observational
- A Novel, Orally Delivered Antibody Therapy and Its Potential to PreventFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Healthcare-associated Diarrhea due toEuroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction
aimTo evaluate the risk factors and clinical course of patients with CDAD. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was planned at our tertiary care centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, whereby, all patients who had nosocomial diarrhea between 2010 and 2014 were included in the study. Their clinical and laboratory profile were recorded using structured questionnaire and their stool samples were subjected to ELISA for detection of toxins A and B (Premier toxins A and B). Those patients who had toxins A and B in their stool samples were diagnosed as CDAD. The clinical and laboratory profile of CDAD patients were further analysed.
resultsA total of 791 patients with nosocomial diarrhea were included in this study. CDAD was diagnosed in a total of 48(6%) patients. The year wise breakdown of the positive patients is as follows: 7/135 (5.2%), 4/156 (2.6%), 5/141 (3.5%), 9/193 (4.7%) and 23/166 (13.8%), respectively. A total of 16/48 (33.3%) of CDAD cases belonged to the age group of 51-60 years. Malignancy (n=15, 31.25%) was the most common underlying pathological condition. All the patients had a history of antibiotic intake. Most common antibiotic used in the patients of CDAD was third generation cephalosporins (n=27, 56.25%). The use of clindamycin, carbapenems and colistin increased in the year 2014. Mean duration of hospital stay was 9.8 days. Diarrhoea was associated with fever in 50% of the patients while abdominal pain was seen in 39.6% of the patients.
conclusionThe control of
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.