ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2020
An Analysis of
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2020. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reexamining Novel Risk Factors for Community-AcquiredOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Public health case for microbiome-sparing antibiotics and new opportunities for drug development.mSphere · 2024Article
- European Practice for CDI Treatment.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Environmental approaches to controlling Clostridioides difficile infection in healthcare settings.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023Review
- The Hospital Environment as a Potential Source forInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Fidaxomicin for the Treatment ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Impact of Infection Versus Colonization onOpen forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Opportunities for Nanomedicine inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLower
methodsThe CDI cases were recruited at 4 UK hospitals (Leeds, Bradford, and London [2 centers]). Environmental samples (5 room sites) were taken pretreatment and at 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12 days of treatment, end of treatment (EOT), and post-EOT. Fecal samples were collected at diagnosis and as often as produced thereafter. Swabs/feces were cultured for
resultsPre-EOT (n = 244), there was a significant reduction in environmental contamination (≥1 site positive) around fidaxomicin versus vancomycin/metronidazole recipients at days 4-5 (30% vs 50% recipients,
conclusionsThere were significant reductions in
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.