Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26041892›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015

A Novel Quantitative Sampling Technique for Detection and Monitoring of Clostridium difficile Contamination in the Clinical Environment.

Shanom Ali, Monika Muzslay, Peter Wilson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Isolation ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Hospital cleaning: past, present, and future.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Prevalence ofGerms · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Treatment issues in recurrentFEMS microbes · 2020
    Review
  9. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Self-disinfecting surfaces and infection control.Colloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces · 2019
    Review
  13. AJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Management of a cluster ofAntimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2017
    Article
  16. Toxin A-negative toxin B-positive ribotype 017 Clostridium difficile is the dominant strain type in patients with diarrhoea attending tuberculosis hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shanom AliUniversity College Hospital, Clinical Microbiology and Virology, London, United Kingdom shanom.ali@uclh.nhs.uk.
Monika MuzslayUniversity College Hospital, Clinical Microbiology and Virology, London, United Kingdom.
Peter WilsonUniversity College Hospital, Clinical Microbiology and Virology, London, United Kingdom.
University College Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The horizontal transmission of Clostridium difficile in the hospital environment is difficult to establish. Current methods to detect C. difficile spores on surfaces are not quantitative, lack sensitivity, and are protracted. We propose a novel rapid method to detect and quantify C. difficile contamination on surfaces. Sponge swabbing was compared to contact plate sampling to assess the in vitro recovery of C. difficile ribotype 027 contamination (∼10(0), 10(1), or 10(2) CFU of spores) from test surfaces (a bed rail, a stainless steel sheet, or a polypropylene work surface). Sponge swab contents were concentrated by vacuum filtration, and the filter membrane was plated onto selective agar. The efficacy of each technique for the recovery of C. difficile from sites in the clinical environment that are touched at a high frequency was evaluated. Contact plates recovered 19 to 32% of the total contamination on test surfaces, whereas sponge swabs recovered 76 to 94% of the total contamination, and contact plates failed to detect C. difficile contamination below a detection limit of 10 CFU/25 cm(2) (0.4 CFU/cm(2)). In use, contact plates failed to detect C. difficile contamination (0/96 contact plates; 4 case wards), while sponge swabs recovered C. difficile from 29% (87/301) of the surfaces tested in the clinical environment. Approximately 74% (36/49) of the area in the vicinity of the patient was contaminated (∼1.34 ± 6.88 CFU/cm(2) C. difficile spores). Reservoirs of C. difficile extended to beyond the areas near the patient: a dirty utility room sink (2.26 ± 5.90 CFU/cm(2)), toilet floor (1.87 ± 2.40 CFU/cm(2)), and chair arm (1.33 ± 4.69 CFU/cm(2)). C. difficile was present on floors in ∼90% of case wards. This study highlights that sampling with a contact plate may fail to detect C. difficile contamination and result in false-negative reporting. Our sponge sampling technique permitted the rapid and quantitative measurement of C. difficile contamination on surfaces with a sensitivity (limit, 0 CFU) greater than that which is otherwise possible. This technique could be implemented for routine surface hygiene monitoring for targeted cleaning interventions and as a tool to investigate routes of patient-patient transmission in the clinical environment.

Indexed as

Environmental MicrobiologyBacterial LoadClostridioides difficileHumans

Identifiers

PMID26041892
PMCPMC4508400
OpenAlexW1501240108

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.