ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2011
Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: An official clinical practice guideline of the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy (SEQ), Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) and the working group of Postoperative Infection of the Spanish Society of Anesthesia and Reanimation (SEDAR).Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2020Guideline
- Molecular techniques for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2012Pooled it
- A Two-Stage Cascading Amplification Strategy Based on ZnAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel 2 for the detection ofJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Analysis of high-molecular-weight proteins using MALDI-TOF MS and machine learning for the differentiation of clinically relevant Clostridioides difficile ribotypes.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and XpertJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Pragmatic Strategy for Fecal Specimen Storage and the Corresponding Test Methods forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- New Developments in PCR-Based Diagnostics for Bacterial Pathogens Causing Gastrointestinal Infections-A Narrative Mini-Review on Challenges in the Tropics.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2021Review
- Evaluation of a Novel CLIA Monotest Assay for the Detection of Anti-Hepatitis E Virus-IgG and IgM: A Retrospective Comparison with a Line Blot and an ELISA.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Using diagnostic stewardship to reduce rates, healthcare expenditures and accurately identify cases of hospital-onsetInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2021Article
- Comparative Study ofThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2020Article
- Rapid, label-free genetic detection of enteropathogens in stool without genetic isolation or amplification.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2019Article
- Detection of common diarrhea-causing pathogens in Northern Taiwan by multiplex polymerase chain reaction.Medicine · 2018Observational
- Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens.Frontiers of medicine · 2018Article
- Performance comparison of the cobas Liat and Cepheid GeneXpert systems for Clostridium difficile detection.PloS one · 2018Article
- Performance of Hepatitis E Virus (HEV)-antibody tests: a comparative analysis based on samples from individuals with direct contact to domestic pigs or wild boar in Germany.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2017Article
- Sample-to-result molecular infectious disease assays: clinical implications, limitations and potential.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2016Review
- 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
- Feasibility and Diagnostic Accuracy of Ischemic Stroke Territory Recognition Based on Two-Dimensional Projections of Three-Dimensional Diffusion MRI Data.Frontiers in neurology · 2015Article
- Comparison of GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile as confirmatory tests in a multistep algorithm for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performance characteristics of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin were compared using fresh stool samples from patients with C. difficile infection (CDI). Assays were performed simultaneously and according to the manufacturers' instructions. Patients were included in the study if they exhibited clinical symptoms consistent with CDI. Nonmolecular assays included glutamate dehydrogenase antigen tests, with positive findings followed by the Premier Toxin A and B Enzyme Immunoassay (GDH/EIA), and the C. Diff Quik Chek Complete test. Molecular assays (PCR) included the BD GeneOhm Cdiff Assay, the Xpert C. difficile test, and the ProGastro Cd assay. Specimens were considered true positive if results were positive in two or more assays. For each method, the Youden index was calculated and cost-effectiveness was analyzed. Of 81 patients evaluated, 26 (32.1%) were positive for CDI. Sensitivity of the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, the Xpert C. difficile test, the ProGastro Cd assay, C. Diff Quik Chek Complete test, and two-step GDH/EIA was 96.2%, 96.2%, 88.5%, 61.5%, and 42.3%, respectively. Specificity of the Xpert C. difficile test was 96.4%, and for the other four assays was 100%. Compared with nonmolecular methods, molecular methods detected 34.7% more positive specimens. Assessment of performance characteristics and cost-effectiveness demonstrated that the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay yielded the best results. While costly, the Xpert C. difficile test required limited processing and yielded rapid results. Because of discordant results, specimen processing, and extraction equipment requirements, the ProGastro Cd assay was the least favored molecular assay. The GDH/EIA method lacked sufficient sensitivity to be recommended.
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.