ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Comparison of FecalSwab and ESwab devices for storage and transportation of Diarrheagenic bacteria.
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 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of COPAN FecalSwab and eSwab collection systems for the detection of CMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Validation of rectal swabbing for total and aerobic gut microbiota study.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Evaluation of XpertDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the FecalSwab for Stool Specimen Storage and Molecular Detection of Enteropathogens on the BD Max System.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Use of Rectal Swabs for Laboratory Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Evaluation of Copan FecalSwab as Specimen Type for Use in Xpert C. difficile Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Clostridium difficile infections in Finland, 2008-2015: trends, diagnostics and ribotypes.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
- Evaluation of the New FecalSwab System for Maintaining Stability of Stool Samples Submitted for Molecular Tests.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using a collection (n = 12) of ATCC and known stock isolates, as well as 328 clinical stool specimens, we evaluated the ESwab and the new FecalSwab liquid-based microbiology (LBM) devices for storing and transporting diarrheagenic bacteria. The stock isolates were stored in these swab devices up to 48 h at refrigeration (4°C) or room (∼25°C) temperature and up to 3 months at -20°C or -70°C. With the clinical stool specimens, the performances of the ESwab and FecalSwab were compared to those of routinely used transport systems (Amies gel swabs and dry containers). At a refrigeration temperature, all isolates survived in FecalSwab up to 48 h, while in ESwab, only 10 isolates (83.3%) out of 12 survived. At -70°C, all isolates in FecalSwab were recovered after 3 months of storage, whereas in ESwab, none of the isolates were recovered. At -20°C, neither of the swab devices preserved the viability of stock isolates after 2 weeks of storage, and at room temperature, 7 (58.3%) of the stock isolates were recovered in both transport devices after 48 h. Of the 328 fecal specimens, 44 (13.4%) were positive for one of the common diarrheagenic bacterial species with all transport systems used. Thus, the suitability of the ESwab and FecalSwab devices for culturing fresh stools was at least equal to those of the Amies gel swabs and dry containers. Although the ESwab was shown to be an option for collecting and transporting fecal specimens, the FecalSwab device had clearly better preserving properties under different storage conditions.
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.