0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Epidemiologic profile of community-acquired Clostridioides difficile infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Clostridiodes difficile’s epidemiology has evolved over the past decades, being recognized as an important cause of disease in the community setting. Even so, there has been heterogeneity in the reports of CA-CDI. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the epidemiologic profile of CA-CDI.

          This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA checklist and Cochrane guidelines (CRD42023451134). Literature search was performed by an experienced librarian from inception to April 2023, searching in databases like MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CCRCC, CDSR, and ClinicalTrials. Observational studies that reported prevalence, incidence of CA-CDI, or indicators to calculate them were included. Pool analysis was performed using a binomial-normal model via the generalized linear mixed model. Subgroup analysis and publication bias were also explored. A total of 49 articles were included, obtaining a prevalence of 5% (95% CI 3–8) and an incidence of 7.53 patients (95% CI 4.45–12.74) per 100,000 person-years.

          In conclusion, this meta-analysis underscores that among the included studies, the prevalence of CA-CDI stands at 5%, with an incidence rate of 7.3 cases per 100,000 person-years. Noteworthy risk factors identified include prior antibiotic exposure and age.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

          The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

              Objectives The aim of this study was to develop a critical appraisal (CA) tool that addressed study design and reporting quality as well as the risk of bias in cross-sectional studies (CSSs). In addition, the aim was to produce a help document to guide the non-expert user through the tool. Design An initial scoping review of the published literature and key epidemiological texts was undertaken prior to the formation of a Delphi panel to establish key components for a CA tool for CSSs. A consensus of 80% was required from the Delphi panel for any component to be included in the final tool. Results An initial list of 39 components was identified through examination of existing resources. An international Delphi panel of 18 medical and veterinary experts was established. After 3 rounds of the Delphi process, the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) was developed by consensus and consisted of 20 components. A detailed explanatory document was also developed with the tool, giving expanded explanation of each question and providing simple interpretations and examples of the epidemiological concepts being examined in each question to aid non-expert users. Conclusions CA of the literature is a vital step in evidence synthesis and therefore evidence-based decision-making in a number of different disciplines. The AXIS tool is therefore unique and was developed in a way that it can be used across disciplines to aid the inclusion of CSSs in systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical decision-making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Journal
                Epidemiol Infect
                Epidemiol Infect
                HYG
                Epidemiology and Infection
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                0950-2688
                1469-4409
                2025
                04 March 2025
                : 153
                : e46
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León , Av. Dr. José Eleuterio González 235, Mitras Centro, 64460 Monterrey, Nuevo León, México
                [2 ]Centro de Análisis Avanzado de Información 360 (KER Unit México), Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León , Av. Dr. José Eleuterio González 235, Mitras Centro, 64460 Monterrey, Nuevo León, México
                [3 ]Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic , 210 2nd St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
                [4 ]Centro de Desarrollo en Investigación 360, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León , Av. Dr. José Eleuterio González 235, Mitras Centro, 64460 Monterrey, Nuevo León, México
                [5 ]Servicio de Infectología, Facultad de Medicina y Hospital Universitario “Dr. José Eleuterio González,” Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León , Monterrey, Nuevo León, México
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Adrían Camacho-Ortiz; Email: adrian.camachoort@ 123456uanl.edu.mx
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4912-180X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8044-0094
                Article
                S0950268825000202
                10.1017/S0950268825000202
                11920921
                40033994
                e1f57c9f-17ea-4ec2-8ed1-bcf1b656ffba
                © The Author(s) 2025

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 March 2024
                : 11 August 2024
                : 13 December 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, References: 71, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                community-acquired infections,clostridioides difficile infection,incidence,meta-analysis,prevalence

                Comments

                Comment on this article