ArticleIranian journal of microbiology2018
A prospective cross sectional study of detection of
Article in Iranian journal of microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A worldwide systematic review and meta-analysis of bacteria related to antibiotic-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Risk Factors, Diagnosis, and Management ofMicroorganisms · 2022Review
- Evaluation of inpatients Clostridium difficile prevalence and risk factors in Cameroon.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2020Article
- Diagnosis ofIranian journal of microbiology · 2018Article
- Systematic Literature Review on Burden ofClinical pathology (Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, Calif.)Review
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, which was conducted on 660 samples, a 2- step strategy was used. In the first step, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) was detected in stool samples by enzyme-linked immunofluorescent assay (ELFA). In the second step, GDH positive samples were tested for
resultsOf the 660 samples screened, toxin was detected in 8.8% (58/660) by ELFA and 9.7% (64/660) by NAAT. GDH was detected in 23.8% (157/660) and toxin in 36.9% (58/157) of the GDH positives. Most of the toxin positive patients were on one or more antibiotics prior to developing diarrhoea. The implicated antibiotics were meropenem, amikacin, colistin and cephalosporins. Diabetes, hypertension, use of proton pump inhibitors, previous hospitalization, malignancy and chemotherapy were found to be the risk factors in our study.
conclusionPrevalence of GDH was 23.8% (157/660) by ELFA. Toxin prevalence was 9.7% (64/660). Detection rates of
Indexed as
Identifiers
29922412PMC6004637W2788443841What 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.