ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2016
An Update on Clostridium difficile Toxinotyping.
Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global prevalence of Clostridioides difficile in 17,148 food samples from 2009 to 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Clostridioides difficile as a Zoonotic and Foodborne Pathogen: Reviewing the Global Evidence and South African Data.MicrobiologyOpen · 2026Review
- Colonization Dynamics ofVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Phenotypic analysis of variousApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Illumina and Oxford Nanopore sequencing data quality for Clostridioides difficile genome analysis and their application for epidemiological surveillance.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Phenotypic analysis of variousbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Mechanisms ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Assessing the Risk of SpreadingAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Regional and temporal genotype profiling of Clostridioides difficile in a multi-institutional study in Japan.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Genomic and phenotypic studies amongMicrobiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Comparative Genomics of Clostridioides difficile.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Ribotypes and New Virulent Strains Across Europe.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- An Updated View on the Cellular Uptake and Mode-of-Action of Clostridioides difficile Toxins.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Review of the Impact of Biofilm Formation on RecurrentMicroorganisms · 2023Review
- Update on Commonly Used Molecular Typing Methods forMicroorganisms · 2023Review
- Article
- Ribotyping of Clostridioides difficile in the Liberec Regional Hospital: a tertiary health care facility.Folia microbiologica · 2023Article
- The Environment, Farm Animals and Foods as Sources ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Toxinotyping is a PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP)-based method for differentiation of Clostridium difficile strains according to the changes in the pathogenicity locus (PaLoc), a region coding for toxins A and B. Toxinotypes are a heterogenous group of strains that are important in the development of molecular diagnostic tests and vaccines and are a good basis for C. difficile phylogenetic studies. Here we describe an overview of the 34 currently known toxinotypes (I to XXXIV) and some changes in nomenclature.
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.