ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2017
A Propensity-Matched Analysis Between Standard Versus Tapered Oral Vancomycin Courses for the Management of Recurrent
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 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.
- Pulsed dosing and extended daily dosing of oral vancomycin do not facilitate clearance ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024Article
- Treatment issues in recurrentFEMS microbes · 2020Review
- Economic evaluation of Faecal microbiota transplantation compared to antibiotics for the treatment of recurrentEClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
- Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2020Article
- Management ofTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes of oral vancomycin courses without taper versus oral vancomycin courses with taper for treatment of recurrent
methodsThis investigation was a multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis study using a Veterans Health Administration national clinical administrative database. Adult patients who were treated for recurrent CDI from any Veterans Affairs Medical Center between June 1, 2011 and October 31, 2016 were included if they were treated with oral vancomycin with or without a tapering regimen. The 2 groups were matched by next-nearest approach from a propensity score formula derived from independent variables associated with the selection of a taper regimen.
resultsPropensity score matching resulted in 2 well-matched groups consisting of 226 episodes of patients treated with a vancomycin taper regimen and 678 episodes treated by vancomycin regimen without taper. No difference was found for the primary outcome of 180-day recurrence (59 of 226 [26.1%] for taper regimens versus 161 of 678 [23.8%],
conclusionsVancomycin taper regimens did not provide benefit over vancomycin regimens without taper in preventing additional CDI recurrence in patients with first or second recurrent episodes in this propensity score-matched analysis.
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.