ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2022
Impact of Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Outpatient Treatment for
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Impact of Implementing a Specific Clinical Pathway for the Management of Clostridioides difficile Infection.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- A Retrospective Assessment of Guideline Adherence and Treatment Outcomes FromOpen forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Microbiome profile and calprotectin levels as markers of risk of recurrentFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The 2017 Infectious Diseases Society of America/Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (IDSA/SHEA) Methods: A pre-post study design was employed using Medicare data. CDI treatment utilization and clinical outcomes (4- and 8-week sustained response, CDI recurrence) were compared between patients indexed from April-September 2017 (preguideline period) and those indexed from April-September 2018 (postguideline period). Clinical outcomes associated with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin were compared using propensity score-matched analyses. Results: From the pre- to postguideline period, metronidazole use decreased (initial CDI: 81.2% to 53.5%; recurrent CDI: 49.7% to 27.6%) while vancomycin (initial CDI: 17.9% to 44.9%; recurrent CDI: 48.1% to 66.4%) and fidaxomicin (initial CDI: 0.87% to 1.63%; recurrent CDI: 2.2% to 6.0%) use increased significantly ( Conclusions: Vancomycin use increased and metronidazole use decreased after the 2017 guideline update. Fidaxomicin use increased but remained low. Improved outcomes associated with fidaxomicin relative to vancomycin suggest benefits from its greater use in Medicare patients.
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.