ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Comparison of GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile as confirmatory tests in a multistep algorithm for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laboratory Diagnostic Methods forAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2021Pooled 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
- Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and XpertJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Prospective Evaluation of the mariPOC Test for Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxins A/B.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Probiotics in Medicine: A Long Debate.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
- 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
- Evaluation of the novel artus C. difficile QS-RGQ, VanR QS-RGQ and MRSA/SA QS-RGQ assays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), and for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared two multistep diagnostic algorithms based on C. Diff Quik Chek Complete and, as confirmatory tests, GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 87.2%, 99.7%, 97.1%, and 98.3%, respectively, for the GenomEra-based algorithm and 89.7%, 99.4%, 95.5%, and 98.6%, respectively, for the Xpert-based algorithm. GenomEra represents an alternative to Xpert as a confirmatory test of a multistep algorithm for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis.
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.