ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2014
Performance of chromID Clostridium difficile agar compared with BBL C. difficile selective agar for detection of C. difficile in stool specimens.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging Diagnostics inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Three Immunoassays for the Simultaneous Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Colonization of ToxigenicFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Article
- Laboratory Diagnosis ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2019Article
- Effect of the Synthetic Bile Salt Analog CamSA on the Hamster Model of Clostridium difficile Infection.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Article
- Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: Comparison of Techlab C. diff Quik Chek Complete, Xpert C. difficile, and multistep algorithmic approach.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2017Article
- A Decade of Development of Chromogenic Culture Media for Clinical Microbiology in an Era of Molecular Diagnostics.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2017Review
- Current knowledge on the laboratory diagnosis ofWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Isolation and Identification of Clostridium difficile Using ChromID C. difficile Medium Combined With Gram Staining and PRO Disc Testing: A Proposal for a Simple Culture Process.Annals of laboratory medicine · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the performance of a new chromogenic medium for detection of Clostridium difficile, chromID C. difficile agar (CDIF; bioMérieux, France), by comparison with BBL C. difficile Selective Agar (CDSA; Becton Dickinson and Company, USA). After heat pre-treatment (80℃, 5 min), 185 diarrheal stool samples were inoculated onto the two media types and incubated anaerobically for 24 hr and 48 hr for CDIF and for 48 hr and 72 hr for CDSA. All typical colonies on each medium were examined by Gram staining, and the gram-positive rods confirmed to contain the tpi gene by PCR were identified as C. difficile. C. difficile was recovered from 36 samples by using a combination of the two media. The sensitivity with CDIF 48 hr was highest (100%) and was significantly higher than that with CDIF 24 hr (58.3%; P<0.001), because samples with a low burden of C. difficile tended to require prolonged incubation up to 48 hr (P<0.001). The specificity of CDIF 24 hr and CDIF 48 hr (99.3% and 90.6%, respectively) was significantly higher than that of CDSA 48 hr and CDSA 72 hr (72.5% and 67.1%, respectively; P<0.001). CDIF was effective for detecting C. difficile in heat-pretreated stool specimens, thus reducing unnecessary testing for toxin production in non-C. difficile isolates and turnaround time.
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.