ArticleCureus2024
A Three-Year Analysis of Mortality in Clostridioides difficile Patients in a Tertiary Center.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Incidence of hospital-acquired toxin-producing clostridioides difficile infection between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022): a retrospective cohort study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectives
methodsWe collected retrospectively available data for all patients hospitalised between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023. The characteristics of the patients who died after the CDI (
resultsIn the three-year interval mentioned above, 1086 patients had the main or secondary diagnosis of CDI. Of these, 97 patients (8.93%) died. The overall mortality for the same period was 2.62%. Eight patients (8.24%) who died had the primary diagnosis of CDI, while in the entire group, the percentage of patients with a primary diagnosis was 54.7%. Statistically significant differences between the groups of deceased and survivor patients were found for the following parameters: age (p<0.001, 95% CI (confidence interval): 12.5-20.5), previous CDI episodes (p=0.033, 95% CI: 0.014-0.329), and for the following parameters measured at admission: systolic blood pressure, quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA), leucocyte count, haemoglobin, creatinine, albumin, potassium, INR (international normalised ratio), CRP (C-reactive protein), fibrinogen, and procalcitonin. The number of hospitalisation days for the patients who died was significantly higher (p<0.001, 95% CI: 4.3-12.6.).
conclusionsWe identified the characteristics that significantly differentiated the patients who died from those who survived. Mortality is significantly higher in the group of patients with CDI than that in the other hospitalised patients.
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.