Observational studyInfection control and hospital epidemiology2024
Potential underreporting of treated patients using a
Observational study in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical significance of toxin EIA positivity in patients with suspectedJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- The Patients' Voice inOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Health Care-Associated Infections in U.S. Hospitals, 2023 versus 2015.The New England journal of medicine · 2026Article
- The Patients' Voice inmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- A novel RNA nucleic acid amplification test more accurately distinguishes activemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Management and Outcomes of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Patients on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2025Article
- Three stages of laboratory stewardship in improving appropriateAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Diagnosis ofJournal of medical microbiology · 2024Review
- When less is more: the art of communicating clinical microbiology results.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Are We Moving Toward Diagnostic Stewardship Or Laboratory Retrogress OnSage open pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePatients tested for
designRetrospective observational study.
settingThe study was conducted across 36 laboratories at 5 Emerging Infections Program sites. PATIENTS: We defined a CDI case as a positive test detected by this 2-step algorithm during 2018-2020 in a patient aged ≥1 year with no positive test in the previous 8 weeks.
methodsWe used multivariable logistic regression to compare CDI-related complications and recurrence between NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ cases. We used a mixed-effects logistic model to identify factors associated with treatment in NAAT+/toxin- cases.
resultsOf 1,801 cases, 1,252 were NAAT+/toxin-, and 549 were NAAT+/toxin+. CDI treatment was given to 866 (71.5%) of 1,212 NAAT+/toxin- cases versus 510 (95.9%) of 532 NAAT+/toxin+ cases (
conclusionUse of this 2-step algorithm likely results in underreporting of some NAAT+/toxin- cases with clinically relevant CDI. Disease severity and laboratory interpretive comments influence treatment decisions for NAAT+/toxin- cases.
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.