ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2015
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.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of COPAN FecalSwab and eSwab collection systems for the detection of CMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and XpertJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential inWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens.Frontiers of medicine · 2018Article
- Novel portable platform for molecular detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in faeces: a diagnostic accuracy study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, the usability and performance of GenomEra™ C. difficile and BD Max™ Cdiff nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile were investigated in comparison with toxigenic culture and C. difficile toxin A- and toxin B-detecting immunochromatographic antigen (IA) test, the Tox A/B QuikChek®. In total, 302 faecal specimens were collected, 113 of which were in parallel to conventional sample containers and FecalSwab liquid-based microbiology (LBM) tubes. Seventy-nine specimens were considered true-positives for toxigenic C. difficile. The sensitivity and specificity were 97.5 % and 99.6 % and 93.7 % and 98.7 % for the GenomEra and BD Max assays respectively. Toxigenic culture and Tox A/B QuikChek had sensitivity and specificity of 91.1 % and 100 % and 34.2 % and 100 % respectively. Hands-on time for analysing 1 to 24 specimens using NAATs was 1 to 15 min. The rate of PCR inhibition was 0 % for both NAATs with faeces in LBM tubes, while with faeces in conventional sample containers the respective inhibition rates were 5.3 % and 4.4 % for the GenomEra and the BD Max assays. The NAATs demonstrated an excellent analytical performance, reducing significantly the overall workload of laboratory personnel compared with culture and IA test.
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.