MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311525768 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofac492.466

388. Does This Patient Have <i>C. difficile</i> Infection? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4311525768 on OpenAlexaff
Fizza Manzoor, Saba Manzoor, Ruxandra Pinto, Kevin A. Brown, Bradley J. Langford, Nick Daneman

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLeukocytosisUnivariate analysisMeta-analysisMEDLINELikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The clinical features of Clostridioides difficile infection overlap with many conditions. Accurate and early diagnosis of C. difficile is essential for reducing morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic utility of clinical findings associated with C. difficile. Methods We included all studies that reported clinical features of C. difficile, a valid reference standard test for confirming diagnosis of C. difficile, and a comparison among patients with a positive and negative test result. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched up to September 2021. Meta-analyses using univariate and bivariate methods were used to determine estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs). Results A total of 11,231 articles were screened and 46 were included for final analysis, enabling evaluation of 67 features for their diagnostic utility for C. difficile (10 clinical examination findings, 4 laboratory tests, 10 radiographic findings, prior exposure to 14 antibiotic types, and 29 clinical risk factors). Of the ten features identified on clinical examination, none were associated with increased likelihood of C. difficile infection. Features that increased likelihood of C. difficileinfection were stool leukocytes (LR 5.31, 95% CI 3.29-8.56), hospital admission in prior three months (LR 2.39, 95% CI 1.68-3.30), leukocytosis (LR 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.75), and low serum albumin (LR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.97). Some clinical co-morbidities increased likelihood of C. difficile including congestive heart failure (LR 3.01, 95% CI 2.26-3.80) and end-stage renal disease (LR 3.85, 95% CI 1.73-7.57). Several radiographic findings also strongly increased the likelihood of C. difficile infection like pericolonic stranding (LR 10.72, 95% CI 9.59-11.84) and ascites (LR 2.91, 95% CI 1.76-4.80). Conclusion There is limited utility of bedside clinical examination alone in detecting or ruling out C. difficile infection. Accurate diagnosis of C. difficile infection requires a combination of thoughtful clinical assessment and interpretation of test results. However, microbiologic testing is needed for confirmation in all suspected cases. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207