Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31970532›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2020

Implementing a Clostridium difficile testing algorithm and its effect on isolation duration and treatment initiation: a pre- and post-implementation study.

Erik Hans Vogelzang, Jacqueline Marleen Lankelma, Rosa van Mansfeld, Joffrey van Prehn, Robin van Houdt

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clostridioides difficile Near-Patient Testing Versus Centralized Testing: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023
    Trial
  3. Diagnostic Guidance for C. difficile Infections.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Erik Hans VogelzangDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. e.vogelzang@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0047-632X
Jacqueline Marleen LankelmaDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Rosa van MansfeldDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Joffrey van PrehnDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Center for Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Robin van HoudtDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A proportion of patients suspected of Clostridium difficile infection are unnecessarily placed in contact isolation. By introducing a random-access glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) test for C. difficile, we aimed to reduce isolation time. In addition, we investigated whether the result of the toxin A&B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) was associated with the decision to initiate antibiotic treatment against C. difficile. This retrospective pre- and post-implementation study was from June 3, 2016, to June 4, 2018. Pre-implementation, only a NAAT was performed. In the post-implementation period, a GDH test was performed; if positive, a toxin A&B EIA followed the same day and subsequently a NAAT. Contact isolation for CDI was discontinued when the GDH test was negative. Median time in isolation was 50.8 h pre-implementation (n = 189) versus 28.0 h post-implementation (n = 119), p < 0.001. The GDH test had a negative predictive value of 98.8% (95% CI 97.9-99.4). In 7/31 (22.6%) patients with a positive NAAT and GDH test and a negative toxin A&B EIA, no antibiotics against C. difficile were initiated versus 4/28 (14.3%) patients who were NAAT, GDH and toxin A&B EIA positive. Introducing a random-access screening test resulted in a significant decrease in patient isolation time. The GDH test had a high negative predictive value making it suitable to determine whether contact isolation can be discontinued. Furthermore, the result of a toxin A&B EIA had limited added value on the percentage of patients in whom antibiotic treatment against C. difficile was initiated.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPatient IsolationAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEnterotoxinsGlutamate DehydrogenaseHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsEnterotoxinsGlutamate DehydrogenasetcdA protein, Clostridium difficiletoxB protein, Clostridium difficileClostridium difficileIsolationToxin A&B EIA and GDH test

Identifiers

PMID31970532
PMCPMC7225191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.