Observational studyJAMA internal medicine2015
Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Molecular Test Era.
Observational study in JAMA internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03030248 (Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial for the Treatment of Nucleic Acid Amplification Test), which is not on this map. Cited by 280 papers, 3 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.
Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial for the Treatment of Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT)+/Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA)- Clostridium Difficile in the Hematology Oncology Population
Who cites it
280 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 565 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical significance of toxin EIA positivity in patients with suspectedJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Incidence and Outcomes Associated With Clostridium difficile Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic stewardship and the 2017 update of the IDSA-SHEA Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2018Guideline
- Clostridioides difficile Near-Patient Testing Versus Centralized Testing: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Trial
- SER-109, an Investigational Microbiome Drug to Reduce Recurrence After Clostridioides difficile Infection: Lessons Learned From a Phase 2 Trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Trial
- A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Fidaxomicin for Prophylaxis of Clostridium difficile-associated Diarrhea in Adults Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019Trial
- Prevalence ofCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and XpertMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of toxin-positive versus toxin-negative/NAAT-positive Clostridioides difficile infection in South Korea: a single-center retrospective cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Clinical impact of toxin detection in children with PCR-confirmed Clostridioides difficile infection.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Association of a Hospital-Wide Integrated Stewardship Intervention with Hospital-Acquired Multidrug-Resistant Organism Infection Incidence Density: A Large-Scale Interrupted Time-Series Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Treating Initial and RecurrentMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Clinical predictors of enzyme immunoassay accuracy in Clostridioides difficile infection: the impact of immune status and infection predisposing factors.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Clostridioides difficile pathogenesis and control.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026Review
- Clinical features of NAAT-positive, toxin-negative Clostridioides difficile infections in South Korea.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Clostridioides difficile infection in nucleic acid amplification test-positive/toxin-negative patients: to treat or not to treat.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Risk factors for progression fromInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2026Article
- A novel RNA nucleic acid amplification test more accurately distinguishes activemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Diagnostic challenges and treatment approaches forFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Cycle thresholds and discordant 2-step testing for Clostridioides Difficile: Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes among discordant and true positive results.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
220 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by[Not Available].2016
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
importanceClostridium difficile is a major cause of health care-associated infection, but disagreement between diagnostic tests is an ongoing barrier to clinical decision making and public health reporting. Molecular tests are increasingly used to diagnose C difficile infection (CDI), but many molecular test-positive patients lack toxins that historically defined disease, making it unclear if they need treatment.
objectiveTo determine the natural history and need for treatment of patients who are toxin immunoassay negative and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive (Tox-/PCR+) for CDI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsProspective observational cohort study at a single academic medical center among 1416 hospitalized adults tested for C difficile toxins 72 hours or longer after admission between December 1, 2010, and October 20, 2012. The analysis was conducted in stages with revisions from April 27, 2013, to January 13, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients undergoing C difficile testing were grouped by US Food and Drug Administration-approved toxin and PCR tests as Tox+/PCR+, Tox-/PCR+, or Tox-/PCR-. Toxin results were reported clinically. Polymerase chain reaction results were not reported. The main study outcomes were duration of diarrhea during up to 14 days of treatment, rate of CDI-related complications (ie, colectomy, megacolon, or intensive care unit care) and CDI-related death within 30 days.
resultsTwenty-one percent (293 of 1416) of hospitalized adults tested for C difficile were positive by PCR, but 44.7% (131 of 293) had toxins detected by the clinical toxin test. At baseline, Tox-/PCR+ patients had lower C difficile bacterial load and less antibiotic exposure, fecal inflammation, and diarrhea than Tox+/PCR+ patients (P < .001 for all). The median duration of diarrhea was shorter in Tox-/PCR+ patients (2 days; interquartile range, 1-4 days) than in Tox+/PCR+ patients (3 days; interquartile range, 1-6 days) (P = .003) and was similar to that in Tox-/PCR- patients (2 days; interquartile range, 1-3 days), despite minimal empirical treatment of Tox-/PCR+ patients. No CDI-related complications occurred in Tox-/PCR+ patients vs 10 complications in Tox+/PCR+ patients (0% vs 7.6%, P < .001). One Tox-/PCR+ patient had recurrent CDI as a contributing factor to death within 30 days vs 11 CDI-related deaths in Tox+/PCR+ patients (0.6% vs 8.4%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among hospitalized adults with suspected CDI, virtually all CDI-related complications and deaths occurred in patients with positive toxin immunoassay test results. Patients with a positive molecular test result and a negative toxin immunoassay test result had outcomes that were comparable to patients without C difficile by either method. Exclusive reliance on molecular tests for CDI diagnosis without tests for toxins or host response is likely to result in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and increased health care costs.
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.