ArticleJournal of intensive care2025
Classifying diarrhea in critically ill patients through various criteria: a cohort study.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe absence of consensus criteria for diarrhea in critically ill patients poses challenges, including an uncertain prevalence and inconsistent findings regarding the impact of diarrhea on mortality. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of diarrhea, the agreement among different diagnostic criteria, and their association with mortality.
methodsA single-center cohort study was conducted among consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for at least three days between January 2017 and December 2018. The six diarrhea criteria evaluated were based on frequency, quantity, and consistency. These included the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) criteria (≥ 3 times and > 200 g/day loose or liquid stool), the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria (≥ 3 times loose or liquid stool), the Bristol Stool Chart Scale (BSCS) score of 6 or 7, and other quantity- or frequency-based definitions. Outcomes included: (1) prevalence of diarrhea according to each definition, (2) agreement between criteria, and (3) association between diarrhea and in-hospital mortality. Associations were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, yielding hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsAmong 700 participants, 61% were men; the median age was 71 years. The prevalence of diarrhea ranged from 9 to 39%, depending on the criteria used. The WHO and ESICM criteria showed similar prevalences (18.7% and 15.1%, respectively) and high agreement (Kappa 0.87). However, both had weak agreement with the BSCS criteria (prevalence 39.3%; Kappa 0.52 and 0.43, respectively). In univariable analyses, the presence of diarrhea was associated with in-hospital mortality, regardless of the criteria used. In multivariable analyses, only the > 400 g/day loose or liquid stool, > 200 g/day loose or liquid stool, and BSCS criteria maintained this association; the adjusted HRs (95% CI) were 1.93 (1.29‒2.90), 1.78 (1.19‒2.64), and 1.73 (1.15‒2.60), respectively.
conclusionsDiarrhea prevalence varied from 9-39% across definitions. WHO and ESICM, both frequency‑based, differed from BSCS and weight‑based criteria. Given the difficulty of accurate frequency counting in ICU patients, consistency‑ or weight‑based definitions may offer a more practical alternative for both clinical practice and research.
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.