ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Evaluation of Clostridium difficile fecal load and limit of detection during a prospective comparison of two molecular tests, the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi tests.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 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
- Pragmatic Strategy for Fecal Specimen Storage and the Corresponding Test Methods forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Advances in Directly Amplifying Nucleic Acids from Complex Samples.Biosensors · 2019Review
- Comparison of Multilocus Sequence Typing and the Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay for Identification of Clostridium difficile 027/NAP1/BI.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Evaluation of Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile Assays for Direct Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Specimens.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2016Article
- 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
- Emerging technologies for the clinical microbiology laboratory.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2014Review
- Biosynthetic enhancement of the detection of bacteria by the polymerase chain reaction.PloS one · 2014Article
- Utility of a commercial PCR assay and a clinical prediction rule for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in asymptomatic carriers.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- Correlation between Clostridium difficile bacterial load, commercial real-time PCR cycle thresholds, and results of diagnostic tests based on enzyme immunoassay and cell culture cytotoxicity assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Reply to "Comparison of detection methods for Clostridium difficile".Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Evaluation of an algorithmic approach in comparison with the Illumigene assay for laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a large prospective comparison, the illumigene test detected Clostridium difficile in 98% of toxin-positive and 58% of toxin-negative samples confirmed positive by other methods. The Xpert was uniformly sensitive. Most samples with discrepant results had C. difficile concentrations below the illumigene limit of detection. The significance of low-level C. difficile detection needs investigation.
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.