ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Evaluation of the Qiagen artus C. difficile QS-RGQ Kit for Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B in Clinical Stool Specimens.
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. Cited by 9 papers, 4 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential inWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis ofClinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020Review
- 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
- Detection of Clostridium difficile in Feces of Asymptomatic Patients Admitted to the Hospital.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the Qiagen artus C. difficile QS-RGQ kit, a new nucleic acid amplification test for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxins in stool specimens, with the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile test. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the Qiagen artus C. difficile QS-RGQ test were 100%, 89.5%, 60.9%, and 100%, and those for the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile test were 100%, 90%, 62.2%, and 100%, respectively.
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.