ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Evaluation of the fully automated BD MAX Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile assays for direct detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile diagnostic assay: an update meta-analysis.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021Pooled it
- Accuracy of Xpert Clostridium difficile assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: A meta analysis.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and XpertJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential inWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Clinical microbiology in detection and identification of emerging microbial pathogens: past, present and future.Emerging microbes & infections · 2022Article
- Comparison of commercial assays and two-step approach to detectAfrican journal of laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Clostridioides difficile laboratory diagnostic techniques: a comparative approach of rapid and molecular methods.Archives of microbiology · 2021Article
- Performance Evaluation of the Luminex Aries C. difficile Assay in Comparison to Two Other Molecular Assays within a Multihospital Health Care Center.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Discrimination of Human Pathogen Clostridium Species Especially of the Heterogeneous C. sporogenes and C. botulinum by MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry.Current microbiology · 2018Article
- Role of Pneumocystis jirovecii in patients with different pulmonary underlying condition using a nested-PCR.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2018Article
- Performance comparison of the cobas Liat and Cepheid GeneXpert systems for Clostridium difficile detection.PloS one · 2018Article
- 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
- Ambulatory-treated Clostridium difficile infection: a comparison of community-acquired vs. nosocomial infection.Epidemiology and infection · 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
- Combination of culture, antigen and toxin detection, and cytotoxin neutralization assay for optimal Clostridium difficile diagnostic testing.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the fully automated molecular BD MAX Cdiff assay (BD Diagnostics) and the Xpert C. difficile test (Cepheid) for rapid detection of Clostridium difficile infection. Culture was done on chromogenic agar followed by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry identification and toxin detection. Repeat testing was required for 1.8% and 6.0% of the BD MAX and Xpert tests, respectively. Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were 90.5%, 97.9%, 89.3%, and 98.1%, respectively, for BD MAX and 97.3%, 97.9%, 90.0%, and 99.5%, respectively, for Xpert.
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.