ArticleSpartan medical research journal2020
The Face of
Article in Spartan medical research journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has long been well-established that Clostridiodes difficile infections (CDI) can cause severe morbidity and mortality. However, most of the literature to date has focused on hospital-diagnosed infections with less emphasis on clinic-based CDI cases. Guidelines from the 2010 IDSA/SHEA for CDI advocate for metronidazole as first-line therapy for mild to moderate CDI cases. However, the 2017 guidelines recommend oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin as first-line therapy due to their superior efficacy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare Clostriodes difficile infections in convenience samples of clinic vs. hospital patients.
methodsIn 2019, a retrospective, case-controlled study was performed by the first six authors between 2015-2017 (i.e., prior to the 2017 IDSA/SHEA CDI guidelines) to compare ambulatory and hospital CDI treatment prescriptions. Analytic data included frequency of White blood cells (WBC) and creatinine collection, frequency of severe CDI cases, compliance with the 2010 guidelines, CDI recurrence, and mortality.
resultsAn eligible subgroup of N = 92 hospital patients at Spectrum Health Lakeland were more likely to have WBC (98.4% vs 32.6%, p<0.001) and creatinine (97.8 vs. 39.4, P < 0.001) drawn than 184 patients receiving clinic-based care. Hospital sampled patients were more likely to have severe CDI (46.7% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001). Mortality was less common in hospital patients (1.1% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.017) and the recurrence rates were similar. (21.2% inpatient vs. 28.3% outpatient, (p = 0.224).
conclusionsBased on these results, assessment of CDI severity remains limited in the ambulatory population due to the lack of severity markers. It is unclear if this is due to lack of available laboratory resources or difference in clinical presentation. Of those sample patients who have available markers of severity, patients receiving clinic-based diagnoses were less likely assessed to have severe CDI. Keywords: Cloistriodes difficile infection, ambulatory, severity markers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33655182PMC7746043W3119063612What 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.