ArticleBMC infectious diseases2013
Indeterminate tcdB using a Clostridium difficile PCR assay: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- False Negative Results in Clostridium difficile Testing.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundC. difficile (CD) real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for toxin B gene (tcdB) is more sensitive, and reduces turnaround time when compared to toxin immunoassay. We noted typical amplification curves with high tcdB cycle thresholds (Ct) and low endpoints (Ept) that are labeled negative by the Xpert(®) C. difficile assay (Cepheid) and undertook this study to determine their significance.
methodsWe defined an indeterminate CD assay result as detection of a typical PCR amplification curve with an Ept >10 that was interpreted as negative by the Xpert(®) assay. Samples with indeterminate Xpert(®) result were collected for 5 months and retested by Xpert(®), cultured for toxigenic CD, and isolates subjected to PCR ribotyping, detection of toxin genes and multilocus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) typing. Chart reviews were completed to assess if patients met the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and the Infectious Diseases Society of America CD infection (CDI) clinical case definition. Illness severity was compared with tcdB Ct and culture results.
resultsDuring the 5-month study period, 48/3620 (1%) of specimens were indeterminate and 387/3620 (11%) were positive. Of the 48 patients with indeterminate results, 39 (81%) met the clinical case definition of CDI, and 7 of these (18%) met criteria for severe CDI. Toxigenic stool cultures were positive for 86% (6/7) of patients with severe CDI, 19% (6/32) of patients with non-severe CDI, and 44% (4/9) of patients who did not meet the clinical case definition of CDI (p = 0.002). Lower tcdB Ct and higher Ept were associated with greater likelihood of toxigenic culture positivity (p = 0.03) and more severe symptoms (p = 0.06). Indeterminate results were not associated with a particular technologist or instrument module, or CD strain type.
conclusionsA subset of specimens (1%) using the Xpert(®) C. difficile assay have typical amplification curves and are interpreted as negative. At least one-third of these results are associated with positive CD culture. The mechanism of these indeterminate results is not technique-related, equipment-related, or due to particular CD strains. Clinicians should be aware that even PCR testing has the potential to miss CDI cases and further highlights the importance of clinical context when interpreting results.
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.