The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ten Years of Prospective Clostridium difficile-Associated Disease Surveillance and Treatment at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, 1982–1991
Abstract
Objectives: To understand the epidemiology, risks, and management of Clostridium difficile -associated disease (CDAD) and to establish and evaluate reliable methods of surveillance. Design: Case finding was done by daily ward and laboratory rounds. The criteria for CDAD diagnosis were: at least four unformed stools per day for 2 days and a positive culture or cytotoxin for C difficile, or positive endoscopy or autopsy for pseudomembranes. Setting: The surveillance covered all patients from 1982 through 1991 in the 820-bed Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Participants: The criteria were met by 908 patients. Medical service patients numbered 488; surgical patients, 420. Frequencies ranged from a high of 149 cases in 1982 to a low of 50 cases in 1989. Results: Stool specimens were obtained on 898 (99%) of the 908 CDAD patients. Stools were culture-positive in 864 (96%) of 898, cytotoxin-positive in 569 (63%) of 898. Endoscopy was performed on 196 (22%) of the 908 patients, and 80 (41%) of 196 patients had pseudomembranes. Ten (1%) of the 908 patients were diagnosed by endoscopy without a stool specimen, or at autopsy. No treatment was needed for 135 (15%) of the 908 CDAD patients, and 19 (2%) of the 908 died before treatment was started. Oral metronidazole was the treatment for 632 (70%) of 908 patients (1% intolerance, 2% failure, 7% relapse) and oral vancomycin was given to 122 (13%) of 908 patients (1% intolerance, 1% failure, 10% relapse). Twelve patients had pseudomembranous colitis at autopsy, and it was the primary cause of death in 5 (0.6%) of 908. Conclusions: CDAD usually responds to oral metronidazole or vancomycin but is nonetheless responsible for a high morbidity and occasional mortality in patients even when the diagnosis and treatment are pursued aggressively.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
McDonald, L. C., Gerding, D. N., Johnson, S., Bakken, J. S., Carroll, K. C., Coffin, S. E., Dubberke, E. R., Garey, K. W., Gould, C. V., Kelly, C., et al. (2018) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cix1085 · Cited by 2,690
Self-citationGuidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections
Surawicz, C. M., Brandt, L. J., Binion, D. G., Ananthakrishnan, A. N., Curry, S. R., Gilligan, P. H., McFarland, L. V., Mellow, M., & Zuckerbraun, B. S. (2013) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.4 · Cited by 1,645
Kyne, L., Warny, M., Qamar, A., & Kelly, C. P. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03592-3 · Cited by 804
van Prehn, J., Reigadas, E., Vogelzang, E. H., Bouza, E., Hristea, A., Guery, B., Krutova, M., Norén, T., Allerberger, F., Coia, J. E., et al. (2021) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.09.038 · Cited by 640
Diagnosis and Treatment of Clostridium difficile in Adults: A Systematic Review
Bagdasarian, N., Rao, K., & Malani, P. N. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17103 · Cited by 451
Metadata
- Authors
- Olson, M. M., Shanholtzer, C. J., Lee, J. T., & Gerding, D. N.
- Venue
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1994-06
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 371-381
- ISSN
- 0899-823X (ISSN-L)
- 1559-6834
- OpenAlex
- W2025939938
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ten Years of Prospective Clostridium difficile-Associated Disease Surveillance and Treatment at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, 1982–1991. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/646934
- The paper
- Olson, M. M., Shanholtzer, C. J., Lee, J. T., & Gerding, D. N. (1994). Ten Years of Prospective Clostridium difficile-Associated Disease Surveillance and Treatment at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, 1982–1991. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1086/646934
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.