ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
Evaluation of a new molecular test, the BD Max Cdiff, for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal samples.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and XpertMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential inWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Clostridioides difficile laboratory diagnostic techniques: a comparative approach of rapid and molecular methods.Archives of microbiology · 2021Article
- Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis ofClinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020Review
- Comparative Study ofThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2020Article
- Antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular characterisation using whole-genome sequencing ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
- Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxins and laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections.Infection · 2017Review
- 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
- Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) in Solid Organ and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients.Current infectious disease reports · 2014Article
- Multicenter evaluation of the Quidel Lyra Direct C. difficile nucleic acid amplification assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- 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
- Development and evaluation of a real-time PCR assay for detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii on the fully automated BD MAX platform.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Evaluation of the fully automated BD MAX Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile assays for direct detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A new molecular assay detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile, the BD Max Cdiff (Becton, Dickinson), was evaluated with 360 diarrheal feces samples. It exhibited high sensitivity (97.7%) and specificity (99.7%). The positive (97.7%) and negative (99.7%) predictive values of this test allow an accurate answer within 2 h.
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.