ArticleInfectious diseases in clinical practice (Baltimore, Md.)2020
A Single-Center Experience and Literature Review of Management Strategies for
Article in Infectious diseases in clinical practice (Baltimore, Md.), 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.
- Prevalence ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Pooled it
- Identification and Characterization of Patient Populations at High Risk for Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI): A Narrative Review.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- Epidemiology and Outcomes of RecurrentOpen forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Determination of Risk Factors for Infectious Diarrhea in Patients with Hematological Malignancy.Infection & chemotherapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe aim of our study is to evaluate risk factors associated with the development of
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of medical records of adult HSCT recipients diagnosed between 2013 and 2016 at our center. Logistic regression models were used to determine the relationship between risk factors and the odds of CDI.
resultsThe overall incidence of CDI in HSCT patients was 9.4%. The incidence of CDI was higher in allogeneic HSCT (20%) versus autologous HSCT (4.8%). No statistically significant differences in age, gender, cancer type, transplant type were found between those who developed CDI and those who did not. However, patients with CDI had a longer length of stay (25 days) and used more antibiotics (30 days prior to and during admission for HSCT) than non-CDI patients (19 days). Only two of 17 patients (11.8%) with CDI experienced recurrence among 180 patients after HSCT. No patient suffered from toxic megacolon or ileus and no patient underwent colectomy. There was no mortality associated with CDI at our center.
conclusionCDI has an incidence rate of 9.4% in HSCT recipients. Established risk factors including age, gender, cancer type, and transplant type were not identified as risk factors in our population. However, longer LOS and use of greater than four lines of antibiotics were observed among those with CDI compared to those without CDI.
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.