MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2017652741 · doi:10.5217/ir.2014.12.4.266

Risk Factors for Delayed Recurrence of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>Infection

2014· article· en· W2017652741 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ji Won Kim

Notice bibliographique

RevueIntestinal Research · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineClostridium difficileIncidence (geometry)DiarrheaPseudomembranous colitisInternal medicineAntibioticsConcomitantPediatricsMicrobiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is an anaerobic, gram-positive, spore-forming bacterium, and C. difficile infection (CDI) is a common cause of infectious diarrhea and pseudomembranous colitis. The incidence of CDI is increasing worldwide, most likely as a result of the increased use of antibiotics, and the subsequent emergence of hypervirulent strains.1 In Western countries, the incidence and severity of CDI are also increasing.2 Furthermore, recent reports suggest that in Asian countries, C. difficile is more prevalent than previously thought, and that the incidence of CDI is also increasing significantly in Korea.3,4 Recurrent CDI occurs either due to relapse (persistence of the same strain of C. difficile) or reinfection (acquisition of a new strain of C. difficile). The impact of recurrent CDI is significant because it influences the length of hospitalization and the cost of treatment.5 In a Canadian study of hospitalized patients, the independent predictors of recurrent CDI were found to be old age, acquisition of CDI during a hospital stay, and length of hospital stay.6 In a recent meta-analysis conducted by Garey et al., continued use of antibiotics after diagnosis, concomitant antacid medication, and old age were significant predictors of recurrent CDI.7 The risk factors associated with recurrent CDI have been investigated in some studies conducted in Korea.8,9,10 In a study by Kim et al., of 125 patients that developed C. difficile-associated diarrhea, 27 patients (21.6%) experienced one or more recurrence, and the risk factors for the CDI recurrence were identified as advanced age (over 65 years), a serum albumin level below 2.5 g/dL, and concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors.8 Jung et al. suggested that a history of surgery is a predictor of recurrence after metronidazole treatment of CDI.9 In a study by Ryu et al., patients who received tube feeding were at an increased risk of recurrent CDI.10 However, in these studies, the recurrence of CDI was evaluated only between weeks and 90 days only. In the present study,11 the authors investigated the long-term clinical outcomes of CDI in hospitalized patients in a single center. The authors evaluated delayed CDI recurrence after eight weeks of successful treatment response. The predictive factors associated with delayed CDI recurrence were tube feeding, and the use of anti-gastric acid medications. Tube feeding is a known risk factor for CDI because it can act as a transmission factor for C. difficile. Aseptic control of the feeding tube may aid in reducing contamination, and therefore preventing CDI. Another important result of this study is the mortality rate of patients with CDI. Although no deaths were attributed to CDI, the results of this study suggest that CDI may predict the poor prognosis of underlying diseases. As the authors mentioned, this study was limited in that it was retrospective, performed in a single center, and the hypervirulent strain was not evaluated appropriately. Another weak point of this study is that antacid medication history was not clearly defined. It would have been better if the authors had clarified the temporal relationship between antacid exposure and the development of diarrheal symptoms. In conclusion, risk factors for delayed recurrence of CDI were identified in the present paper. This study suggests that more sanitary manipulation of feeding tubes may prevent the recurrence of CDI. Further prospective studies with a large number of patients are needed to more accurately elucidate the factors associated with recurrent CDI.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,263
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,981

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,393
Écart entre enseignants0,306 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIntestinal ResearchMême sujetClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchTravaux en français237 207