2018
DOI: 10.3201/eid2403.170961
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Artificial Differences in Clostridium difficile Infection Rates Associated with Disparity in Testing

Abstract: In 2015, Clostridium difficile testing rates among 30 US community, multispecialty, and cancer hospitals were 14.0, 16.3, and 33.9/1,000 patient-days, respectively. Pooled hospital onset rates were 0.56, 0.84, and 1.57/1,000 patient-days, respectively. Higher testing rates may artificially inflate reported rates of C. difficile infection. C. difficile surveillance should consider testing frequency.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…MLST multilocus sequence typing, CGE capillary gel electrophoresis, CQR Chongqing Ribotype New-ribo-type found in Chongqing, ST sequence type, RT ribotype Table 3 The and meta-analysis reported an incidence of 0.32 cases of CDI per 1000 patient admissions in Asia [5] and a similar result was verified in a 7-year retrospective study in a large university hospital in Eastern China [26]. This study reported a relatively low incidence of 0.18 per 1000 patient admissions, probably due to inadequate awareness of CDI among clinicians, low sensitivity of stool anaerobic culture for C. difficile detection, and low testing frequency [27]. Another possible reason is the missing information of a proportion of inpatients who might develop CDI after discharge.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…MLST multilocus sequence typing, CGE capillary gel electrophoresis, CQR Chongqing Ribotype New-ribo-type found in Chongqing, ST sequence type, RT ribotype Table 3 The and meta-analysis reported an incidence of 0.32 cases of CDI per 1000 patient admissions in Asia [5] and a similar result was verified in a 7-year retrospective study in a large university hospital in Eastern China [26]. This study reported a relatively low incidence of 0.18 per 1000 patient admissions, probably due to inadequate awareness of CDI among clinicians, low sensitivity of stool anaerobic culture for C. difficile detection, and low testing frequency [27]. Another possible reason is the missing information of a proportion of inpatients who might develop CDI after discharge.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…Symptoms of primary and recurrent CDI can be particularly debilitating in persons with advanced age and are frequently associated with postinfectious irritable bowel syndrome ( 5 ). In patients receiving concomitant cancer therapy, CDI symptoms are often indistinguishable from the gastrointestinal side effects of chemotherapy, radiation, and newer immunotherapies ( 17 ). For these complex reasons, CDI during cancer treatment can lead to delays in future chemotherapy or radiation cycles and have been shown to negatively affect eligibility for curative treatment options ( 18 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The C . difficile tgNAAT CT could provide more information than the binary positive/negative result, by lower CTs predicting poorer outcomes [7, 8]. However, limitations of previous studies (single centre design, lack of optimal reference method, cohort sizes and use of composite outcome) mean that the relationship between CT value and CDI severity, including mortality, and risk of recurrence merits further investigation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%