ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
A Retrospective Assessment of Guideline Adherence and Treatment Outcomes From
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Needles to Numbers: Leveraging Electronic Medical Records in Acupuncture Studies.Medical acupuncture · 2026Article
- Treating Initial and RecurrentMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Diagnosis, treatment, and prophylaxis ofJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of fidaxomicin in preventing recurrence after initial community-associatedAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- Trends and Efficacy in Clostridioides difficile Infection Management at a Polish Clinical Hospital.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Clinician Management Preferences forOpen forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The 2021 update to the Infectious Diseases Society of America Methods: This retrospective, observational study used the PINC AI Healthcare Database on adult patients who received CDI treatment between 1/2020 and 6/2021 (pre period) and between 10/2021 and 9/2022 (post period). We examined treatment patterns of fidaxomicin, vancomycin, and metronidazole, as well as clinical and health care resource use outcomes of patients treated exclusively with fidaxomicin vs vancomycin, using nearest-neighbor propensity matching and hierarchical regression methods. As a sensitivity analysis, we repeated the fidaxomicin vs vancomycin comparisons among patients with recurrent and nonrecurrent index infections. Results: A total of 45 049 patients with CDI from 779 US hospitals met initial inclusion criteria. Comparing the pre vs post periods, the proportion of patients treated with fidaxomicin increased from 5.9% to 13.7% ( Conclusions: Since the 2021 guideline update, fidaxomicin use has increased significantly but could be further utilized given its association with better clinical outcomes and no increase in postdischarge costs.
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.