Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2018
Oral teicoplanin versus oral vancomycin for the treatment of severe Clostridium difficile infection: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of different therapies forThe Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Review
- Clinical effect of teicoplanin on pulmonary infection after chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Teicoplanin combined with conventional vancomycin therapy for the treatment of pulmonary methicillin-resistantWorld journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Teicoplanin Suppresses VegetativeAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Management ofTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare clinical cure rate, recurrence rate and time to resolution of diarrhea in patients with severe and severe-complicated Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) treated with teicoplanin or vancomycin. This two-year prospective observational study included patients with first episode or first recurrence of CDI who had severe or severe-complicated CDI and were treated with teicoplanin or vancomycin. Primary outcomes of interest were clinical cure rate at discharge and recurrence rate after eight weeks follow up, and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and time to resolution of diarrhea. Among 287 study patients, 107 were treated with teicoplanin and 180 with vancomycin. The mean age of patients was 73.5 ± 10.6 years. One hundred eighty six patients (64.8%) had prior CDI episode. Severe complicated disease was detected in 23/107 (21.5%) and 42/180 (23.3%) patients treated with teicoplanin and vancomycin, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in time to resolution of diarrhea between two treatment arms (6.0 ± 3.4 vs 6.2 ± 3.1 days, p = 0.672). Treatment with teicoplanin resulted in significantly higher clinical cure rate compared to vancomycin [90.7% vs 79.4%, p = 0.013, odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) 2.51 (1.19-5.28)]. Recurrence rates were significantly lower in patients treated with teicoplanin [9/97 (9.3%) vs 49/143 (34.3%), p < 0.001, OR (95%CI) 0.20 (0.09-0.42)]. There was no statistically significant difference in overall mortality rate. Teicoplanin might be a good treatment option for patients with severe CDI. Patients treated with teicoplanin experienced remarkably lower recurrence rates compared to vancomycin-treated patients.
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.