Trial reportClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2023
Clostridioides difficile Near-Patient Testing Versus Centralized Testing: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.
Trial report in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03857464 (C. Difficile Near-patient Testing Versus Centralized Laboratory Testing), which is not on this 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.
C. Difficile Near-patient Testing Versus Centralized Laboratory Testing: a Cluster Randomized Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManagement of suspected Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in the hospital setting typically results in patient isolation, laboratory testing, infection control, and presumptive treatment. We investigated whether implementation of rapid near-patient testing (NPT) reduced patient isolation time, hospital length of stay (LOS), antibiotic usage, and cost.
methodsA 2-period pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trial was conducted. Thirty-nine wards were randomized into 2 study arms. The primary outcome measure was effect of NPT on patient isolation time using a mixed-effects generalized linear regression model. Secondary outcomes examined were hospital LOS and antibiotic therapy based on a negative binomial regression model. Natural experiment (NE), intention-to-treat (ITT), and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted.
resultsDuring the entire study period, a total of 656 patients received NPT for CDI and 1667 received standard-of-care testing. For the primary outcome, a significant decrease of patient isolation time with NPT was observed (NE, 9.4 hours [P < .01]; ITT, 2.3 hours [P < .05]; PP, 6.7 hours [P < .1]). A significant reduction in hospital LOS was observed with NPT for short stay (NE, 47.4% [P < .01]; ITT, 18.4% [P < .01]; PP, 34.2% [P < .01]). Each additional hour delay for a negative result increased metronidazole use (24 defined daily doses per 1000 patients; P < .05) and non-CDI-treating antibiotics by 70.13 mg (P < .01). NPT was found to save 25.48 US dollars per patient when including test cost to the laboratory and patient isolation in the hospital.
conclusionsThis pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trial demonstrated that implementation of CDI NPT can contribute to significant reductions in isolation time, hospital LOS, antibiotic usage, and healthcare cost. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03857464.
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.