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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile diagnostic assay: an update meta-analysis.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021Pooled 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
- Accuracy of Xpert Clostridium difficile assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: A meta analysis.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2016Pooled it
- 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] · 2023Article
- Verification of analytical bacterial spectrum of QIAstat-Dx® GI V2 and Novodiag® Bacterial GE+ V2-0 diagnostic panels.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens.Frontiers of medicine · 2018Article
- BaiCD gene cluster abundance is negatively correlated with Clostridium difficile infection.PloS one · 2018Article
- Detection of Clostridium difficile in Feces of Asymptomatic Patients Admitted to the Hospital.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Evaluation of Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile Assays for Direct Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Specimens.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2016Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.