ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2023
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comprehensive review ofWorld journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Article
- The dual role for probiotics use in dental practices.Frontiers in oral health · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With multiple comorbidities and frequent exposures to antibiotics, patients in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are much more vulnerable to healthcare-acquired infections. We conducted a quality-improvement, retrospective analysis of all patients with Objectives: To assess the value of providing probiotic therapy to SNF patients at risk for CDI. Patients and methods: Patients receiving oral or enteral feeding with antibiotics ordered were eligible to receive probiotics. The incremental cost of CDI prevention, treatment and related care were calculated and compared for each phase of probiotic policy change and feeding type. ASP records for the oral probiotic and level of treatment were used in modelling the cost-effectiveness. Results: From quality improvement initiatives aimed at preventing facility-onset (FO) CDI, to ASP policies, probiotic formulations and delegation of ordering authority, the days of acute care treatment required was significantly reduced over the different phases of implementation [152 to 48, OR = 0.22 (0.16-0.31) to 4, OR = 0.08 (0.03-0.23)] after reducing total CDI from 5.8 to 0.3 cases per 10 000 patient-days. The annual cost of oral probiotics increased from $6019 to $14 652 but the modelled net annual savings for the facility was $72 544-$154 085. Conclusions: With optimization, the use of probiotics for CDI prevention at an SNF was safe, efficacious and cost-effective.
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.