ReviewInfection2019
Comparison of three current Clostridioides difficile infection guidelines: IDSA/SHEA, ESCMID, and ACG guidelines.
Review in Infection, 2019. 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.
- Evaluating Bacterial Viability in Faecal Microbiota Transplantation: A Comparative Analysis of In Vitro Cultivation and Membrane Integrity Methods.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2024Article
- Impact of the Introduction of a Two-Step Laboratory Diagnostic Algorithm in the Incidence and Earlier Diagnosis ofMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Improving care for patients withFrontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a widely recognized condition associated with comorbidity and decreased patient quality of life. Certain professional medical organizations develop clinical practice guidelines for major diseases. This is done in an effort to streamline the universal clinical practice and ensure that a more accurate diagnosis and better treatments are offered to respective patients for optimal outcomes. However, as new data evolve, constant update of these guidelines becomes essential. While these guidelines provide up-to-date recommendations, they are not published around the same time; thus, their recommendations may vary depending on evidence available prior to guidelines preparation and publication.
methodsRecommendations and corresponding justifications from three major CDI guidelines between 2013 and 2017 were pooled and compared, and notable differences were highlighted while providing an insight and a final recommendation from a clinical standpoint.
resultsMost recommendations were consistent among all three guidelines. One notable difference was in the specification of candidates for CDI diagnosis, where it would be recommended to mainly test patients with three or more diarrheal episodes over 24 h, if they had no other clear reason for the diarrhea. Another conflicting point was regarding the treatment of non-severe CDI where vancomycin can be considered for older or sicker patients; however, metronidazole still remains a reasonable option based on recent data, some of which were not cited in the most recent guidelines of IDSA/SHEA.
conclusionOverall, it is prudent to follow these guidelines with critical appraisal to fulfill the goal of achieving optimum patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31428991What 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.