ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Evaluation of a new automated homogeneous PCR assay, GenomEra C. difficile, for rapid detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal 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 6 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
6 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
- Case report of clostridium difficile infection after rectal resection with ileostomy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Prospective Evaluation of the mariPOC Test for Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxins A/B.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- 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
- 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated a new automated homogeneous PCR assay to detect toxigenic Clostridium difficile, the GenomEra C. difficile assay (Abacus Diagnostica, Finland), with 310 diarrheal stool specimens and with a collection of 33 known clostridial and nonclostridial isolates. Results were compared with toxigenic culture results, with discrepancies being resolved by the GeneXpert C. difficile PCR assay (Cepheid). Among the 80 toxigenic culture-positive or GeneXpert C. difficile assay-positive fecal specimens, 79 were also positive with the GenomEra C. difficile assay. Additionally, one specimen was positive with the GenomEra assay but negative with the confirmatory methods. Thus, the sensitivity and specificity were 98.8% and 99.6%, respectively. With the culture collection, no false-positive or -negative results were observed. The analytical sensitivity of the GenomEra C. difficile assay was approximately 5 CFU per PCR test. The short hands-on (<5 min for 1 to 4 samples) and total turnaround (<1 h) times, together with the high positive and negative predictive values (98.8% and 99.6%, respectively), make the GenomEra C. difficile assay an excellent option for toxigenic C. difficile detection in fecal specimens.
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.