Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24671790›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Multicenter evaluation of the Quidel Lyra Direct C. difficile nucleic acid amplification assay.

Eric T Beck, Blake W Buchan, Katherine M Riebe, Brenda R Alkins, Preeti Pancholi, Paul A Granato, Nathan A Ledeboer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Laboratory Diagnostic Methods forAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis ofClinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020
    Review
  7. Current knowledge on the laboratory diagnosis ofWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eric T BeckDepartment of Microbiology, Dynacare Laboratories, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Blake W BuchanDepartment of Microbiology, Dynacare Laboratories, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Katherine M RiebeDepartment of Microbiology, Dynacare Laboratories, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Brenda R AlkinsDepartment of Microbiology, Laboratory Alliance of Central New York, Liverpool, New York, USA.
Preeti PancholiDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Paul A GranatoDepartment of Microbiology, Laboratory Alliance of Central New York, Liverpool, New York, USA.
Nathan A LedeboerDepartment of Microbiology, Dynacare Laboratories, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA nledeboe@mcw.edu.
Central New York Research Corporation · USMedical College of Wisconsin · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clostridium difficile is a Gram-positive bacterium commonly found in health care and long-term-care facilities and is the most common cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Rapid detection of this bacterium can assist physicians in implementing contact precautions and appropriate antibiotic therapy in a timely manner. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of the Quidel Lyra Direct C. difficile assay (Lyra assay) (Quidel, San Diego, CA) to that of a direct cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) and enhanced toxigenic culture. This study was performed at three geographically diverse laboratories within the United States using residual stool specimens submitted for routine C. difficile testing. Residual samples were tested using the Lyra assay on three real-time PCR platforms, and results were compared to those for direct CCNA and enhanced toxigenic culture. The test results for all platforms were consistent across all three test sites. The sensitivity and specificity of the Lyra assay on the SmartCycler II, ABI 7500 Fast DX, and ABI QuantStudio DX instruments compared to CCNA were 90.0% and 93.3%, 95.0% and 94.2%, and 93.8% and 95.0%, respectively. Compared to enhanced toxigenic culture, the sensitivity and specificity of the Lyra assay on the SmartCycler II, ABI 7500, and QuantStudio instruments were 82.1% and 96.9%, 89.3% and 98.8%, and 85.7% and 99.0%, respectively. Overall, the Lyra assay is easy to use and versatile and compares well to C. difficile culture methods.

Indexed as

Bacterial ToxinsClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsDiarrheaFecesHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNeutralization TestsNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesBacterial Toxins

Identifiers

PMID24671790
PMCPMC4042815
OpenAlexW1978036500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.