ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2016
Evaluation of Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile Assays for Direct Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Specimens.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Accuracy of Xpert Clostridium difficile assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: A meta analysis.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Evaluation of COPAN FecalSwab and eSwab collection systems for the detection of CMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Clinical features of NAAT-positive, toxin-negative Clostridioides difficile infections in South Korea.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and XpertJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Review
- 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
- A Multicenter Study of the Revogene C. difficile System for Detection of the Toxin B Gene from Unformed Stool Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Article
- Simultaneous Detection ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2019Article
- Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens.Frontiers of medicine · 2018Article
- Performance comparison of the cobas Liat and Cepheid GeneXpert systems for Clostridium difficile detection.PloS one · 2018Article
- Host response to Clostridium difficile infection: Diagnostics and detection.Journal of global antimicrobial resistance · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated the performance of four commercial nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs: Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile) for direct and rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin genes.
methodsWe compared four NAATs on the same set of 339 stool specimens (303 prospective and 36 retrospective specimens) with toxigenic culture (TC).
resultsConcordance rate among four NAATs was 90.3% (306/339). Based on TC results, the sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% and 92.9% for Xpert; 86.3% and 89.3% for Max; 84.3% and 94.4% for IMDx; and 82.4% and 93.7% for Illumigene, respectively. For 306 concordant cases, there were 11 TC-negative/NAATs co-positive cases and 6 TC-positive/NAATs co-negative cases. Among 33 discordant cases, 18 were only single positive in each NAAT (Xpert, 1; Max, 12; IMDx, 1; Illumigene, 4). Positivity rates of the four NAATs were associated with those of semi-quantitative cultures, which were maximized in grade 3 (>100 colony-forming unit [CFU]) compared with grade 1 (<10 CFU).
conclusionsCommercial NAATs may be rapid and reliable methods for direct detection of tcdA and/or tcdB in stool specimens compared with TC. Some differences in the sensitivity of the NAATs may partly depend on the number of toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens.
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.