Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25421216›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2015

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile: real-time PCR detection of toxin genes in faecal samples is more sensitive compared to toxigenic culture.

M B F Jensen, K E P Olsen, X C Nielsen, A M Hoegh, R B Dessau, T Atlung, J Engberg

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile diagnostic assay: an update meta-analysis.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Laboratory Diagnostic Methods forAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection in symptomatic patients: what can we do better?Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

M B F JensenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Slagelse Hospital, Ingemannsvej 18, 4200, Slagelse, Denmark, mibf@regionsjaelland.dk.
K E P Olsen
X C Nielsen
A M Hoegh
R B Dessau
T Atlung
J Engberg
Slagelse Hospital · DKHvidovre Hospital · DKRoskilde University · DKStatens Serum Institut · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) requires the detection of toxigenic C. difficile or its toxins and a clinical assessment. We evaluated the performance of four nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) detecting toxigenic C. difficile directly from faeces compared to routine toxigenic culture. In total, 300 faecal samples from Danish hospitalised patients with diarrhoea were included consecutively. Culture was performed in duplicate (routine and 'expanded toxigenic culture': prolonged and/or re-culture) and genotypic toxin profiling by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), PCR ribotyping and toxinotyping (TT) were performed on culture-positive samples. In parallel, the samples were analysed by four NAATs; two targeting tcdA or tcdB (illumigene C. difficile and PCRFast C. difficile A/B) and two multi-target real-time (RT) PCR assays also targeting cdt and tcdC alleles characteristic of epidemic and potentially more virulent PCR ribotypes 027, 066 and 078 (GeneXpert C. difficile/Epi and an 'in-house RT PCR' two-step algorithm). The multi-target assays were significantly more sensitive compared to routine toxigenic culture (p < 0.05) and significantly more robust to inhibition compared to PCRFast (p < 0.001). Duplicate 'expanded toxigenic culture' increased the culture-positive rate by 29% compared to routine culture. The ability of the GeneXpert and in-house assays to correctly classify PCR ribotype 027 was high (>95%), and in-house PCR displayed 100% correct identification of PCR ribotypes 066 and 078. Furthermore, the presence of the PCR enhancer bovine serum albumin (BSA) was found to be related to high sensitivity and low inhibition rate. Rapid laboratory diagnosis of toxigenic C. difficile by RT PCR was accurate.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacterial ToxinsCell Culture TechniquesChildChild, PreschoolClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsDenmarkFecesFemaleHumansInfantMaleBacterial Toxins

Identifiers

PMID25421216
OpenAlexW2000617998

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.