ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2020
Clinical impact of a
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Impact of Implementing a Specific Clinical Pathway for the Management of Clostridioides difficile Infection.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical impact of a bedside visit to patients with a positive
methodsAll patients ≥18 years old with positive CDI laboratory tests hospitalized between January 2017 and August 2017 received an immediate bedside intervention that consisted mainly of checking protective measures and providing recommendations on infection control and the management of CDI and other infections.
resultsA total of 214 patients were evaluated. The infectious disease (ID) physician was the first to establish protective measures in 25.2% of the cases. In 22/29 (75.9%) cases, physicians in charge accepted ID consultant recommendations to stop CDI treatment in asymptomatic patients. Unnecessary non-CDI antibiotics were discontinued in 19.1% of the cases. ID recommendations were not accepted by physicians in charge in only 12.6% of the cases.
conclusionsA bedside rapid intervention for patients with a CDI-positive faecal sample was effective in avoiding overdiagnosis and unnecessary antibiotic treatment, optimizing anti-CDI drugs, increasing compliance with infection control measures and providing educational advice.
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.