ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2025
Global Practice Variation in the Management of
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Initial Vancomycin Taper for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Secondary vancomycin prophylaxis during antibiotic re-exposure for the prevention of recurrentJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- Combination Therapy with Oral Vancomycin Plus Intravenous Metronidazole Is Not Superior to Oral Vancomycin Alone for the Treatment of SevereAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: An anonymous online survey through REDCap was distributed through multiple channels. Attending physicians, infectious disease pharmacists, and fellows in infectious diseases or medical microbiology who had managed ≥3 cases of CDI in the preceding year were eligible. Responses were compared across continents by chi-square test. Results: Three hundred fifty-nine survey responses were collected from 31 countries and 6 continents (North America 80.5%, Europe 11.7%, other continents 7.8%). A 2-step CDI diagnostic algorithm was used by 75.8% of respondents with heterogeneity in assay type. Similarly, there was significant variability in first-line agents for the treatment of first episodes and first recurrences of uncomplicated CDI and a lack of consensus on treatments for fulminant CDI. Secondary CDI prophylaxis during antibiotic re-exposure was most commonly used in North America (84.1%), followed by other continents (50.0%) and Europe (31.0%; Conclusions: Substantial global variability exists with respect to CDI diagnosis, treatment, and secondary prophylaxis, likely due to divergent guidelines and a paucity of robust evidence. These findings highlight critical knowledge gaps and areas of clinical equipoise and underscore the need for further randomized controlled trials to establish harmonized international best practices for 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.