ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2024
Clinical outcomes of clostridioides difficile infection in the very elderly.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) causes considerable morbidity, mortality, and economic cost. Advanced age, prolonged stay in healthcare facility, and exposure to antibiotics are leading risk factors for CDI. Data on CDI clinical outcomes in the very elderly patients are limited.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized between 2016 and 2018 with CDI. We evaluated demographic clinical and laboratory parameters. Major clinical outcomes were evaluated including duration of hospital stay, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), in-hospital mortality, 30 days post-discharge mortality, and readmission/mortality composite outcome. We compared patients aged up to 80 years (elderly) to those of 80 years old or more (very elderly).
resultsOf 196 patients included in the study, 112 (57%) were very elderly with a mean age of 86 versus 67 years in the elderly group. The duration of hospital stays, and intensive care unit admission frequency were significantly reduced in the very elderly (13 vs. 22 days p = 0.003 and 1.8% vs. 10.7% p = 0.01, respectively). No significant difference was found in the frequencies of in-hospital and in 30 days post-discharge mortality.
conclusionsIn our cohort, the duration of hospital stay seemed to be shorter in the very elderly with no increase of in-hospital and post-discharge mortality. Although admitted less frequently to ICU, the in-hospital survival of the very elderly was not adversely affected compared to the elderly, suggesting that very advanced age per se should not be a major factor to consider in determining the prognosis of a patient with CDI.
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.