ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2009
Comparison of a rapid molecular method, the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, to the most frequently used laboratory tests for detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in diarrheal feces.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs) and Algorithms Including NAATs for the Diagnosis ofClinical microbiology reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Molecular techniques for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2012Pooled it
- Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential inWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Comparison of BD Max Cdiff and GenomEra C. difficile molecular assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from stools in conventional sample containers and in FecalSwabs.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015Article
- C. difficile ribotype 027 or 176?Folia microbiologica · 2014Article
- Clostridium difficile and inflammatory bowel disease: role in pathogenesis and implications in treatment.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Review
- Evaluation of a new automated homogeneous PCR assay, GenomEra C. difficile, for rapid detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2013Review
- Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff and Seegene Seeplex ACE PCR assays using toxigenic Clostridium difficile culture for direct detection of tcdB from stool specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Evaluation of a new molecular test, the BD Max Cdiff, for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by multiplex real-time PCR.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2011Article
- Evaluation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2011Article
- Modifications of commercial toxigenic Clostridium difficile PCR resulting in improved economy and workflow efficiency.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: comparison of four methods on specimens collected in Cary-Blair transport medium and tcdB PCR on fresh versus frozen samples.Infectious disease reports · 2011Review
- Rapid and sensitive loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for Clostridium difficile detection challenges cytotoxin B cell test and culture as gold standard.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Evaluation of the C.Diff Quik Chek Complete Assay, a new glutamate dehydrogenase and A/B toxin combination lateral flow assay for use in rapid, simple diagnosis of clostridium difficile disease.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2010Article
- Comparison of ImmunoCard Toxins A&B and the new semiautomated Vidas Clostridium difficile Toxin A&B tests for diagnosis of C. difficile infection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Six hundred diarrheal stool specimens were collected from inpatients and outpatients at local university hospitals for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile using three parallel methods, the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, the tissue culture cytotoxicity assay, and a commercially available enzyme-linked fluorescence immunoassay (ELFA) (Vidas C. difficile toxin A and B assay; bioMérieux). Toxigenic C. difficile culture was also performed to further clarify discordant results. During a 3-month study period, 58 (9.7%) of the 600 diarrheal samples examined were positive by the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, while the Vidas C. difficile toxin A and B assay and the cytotoxicity assay performed directly on stool samples gave 4.7% and 6.3% positivity rates, respectively. In the case of four samples, BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay results were not evaluable at first because of the presence of PCR inhibitors, but upon repeat testing from the frozen lysates, all of these samples proved to be negative. After resolution with toxigenic culture, the cytotoxicity assay proved to be positive in 55 samples (9.2%), while the ELFA was positive in 37 samples (6.2%). Results of culture and repeated cytotoxicity assays emphasized the importance of the culture method, because the use of ELFA or enzyme immunoassay without a culture method may lead to a substantial portion of toxigenic C. difficile strains being missed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.