ArticleBMJ open2020
Discordant
Article in BMJ open, 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical significance of toxin EIA positivity in patients with suspectedJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Cycle thresholds and discordant 2-step testing for Clostridioides Difficile: Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes among discordant and true positive results.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- Potential underreporting of treated patients using aInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Observational
- Clinical Outcomes of Treated and Untreated C. difficile PCR-Positive/Toxin-Negative Adult Hospitalized Patients: a Quasi-Experimental Noninferiority Study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the proportion of patients who received a treatment for
designCross-sectional study.
settingMonocentric study in a tertiary care hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
participantsAmong 4562 adult patients tested for
main outcome measuresTreatment for CDI.
resultsCDI treatment was administered in 147 (71%) cases. In multivariate analysis, an abdominal CT scan with signs of colitis (OR 14.7; 95% CI 1.96 to 110.8) was the only factor associated with CDI treatment.
conclusionsThe proportion of NAAT+/EIA- patients who received treatment questions the contribution of the EIA for the detection of toxin A/B after NAAT to limit overtreatment. Additional studies are needed to investigate if other factors are associated with the decision to treat.
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.