ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
Evaluation of Primary Oral Vancomycin Prophylaxis Against
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Identification and Characterization of Patient Populations at High Risk for Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI): A Narrative Review.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- A systematic literature review and bayesian meta-analysis of oral vancomycin primary prophylaxis forAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Oral Vancomycin to PreventOpen forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evaluations of oral vancomycin prophylaxis (OVP) against Methods: Patients who received an ASCT within our institution between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2021 were included and separated into 2 groups based on the receipt of OVP. The primary study aim was to measure the incidence of Results: Overall, 254 patients were evaluated and 58% received OVP, predominantly as primary prophylaxis (95%). Of the 18 patients who developed in-hospital CDI, 6 were in the OVP group versus 12 in the non-OVP cohort (4% vs 11%, Conclusions: The use of OVP significantly reduced the incidence of CDI during the in-hospital ASCT course without increasing CDI post-OVP use. These encouraging results should promote further research into the use of OVP in ASCT.
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.