ReviewInfectious disease reports2026
Review in Infectious disease reports, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesAlthough
methodsSix databases (three global [PubMed, Embase, Cochrane] and three Chinese [Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science Citation, Wanfang]) were searched on 5 August 2025 using CDI-related and epidemiological search terms. No date or language limits were applied. Real-world epidemiologic studies of adults and/or children with laboratory-confirmed CDI in mainland China reporting population-based CDI incidence, hospital-based CDI incidence, and/or CDI admission rates were included. All studies not meeting these criteria were excluded. Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were summarized descriptively.
resultsIn total, 11 articles formed the evidence base for this review; each was a single-center, hospital-based study conducted in one of six cities in mainland China and published between 2014 and 2023. RoB assessment indicated that the evidence base was appropriate for this study. No study reported population-based CDI incidence. In total, 10 studies reported hospital-based CDI incidence (0 to 82.0/10,000 patient-days), and four reported CDI admission rates (0 to 23.1/1000 admissions). Eight studies reported mortality rates, which varied across studies.
conclusionsSeveral single-center, hospital-based studies demonstrate that CDI is present in hospitals in mainland China, but there are no published population-based CDI incidence estimates. These results should be interpreted considering this study's limitations, including potential publication and selection bias, heterogeneity, and limited generalizability. Overall, the burden of CDI is poorly understood in mainland China. Thus, prospective epidemiological studies, including those with sensitive detection methods, are needed to examine CDI burden across multiple cities in mainland China. These efforts would help illuminate the CDI burden and guide prevention efforts. (PROSPERO ID 1140152; registered 17 March 2026; funding by Pfizer Inc.).
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.