ArticleBMC microbiology2016
A prospective study of two isothermal amplification assays compared with real-time PCR, CCNA and toxigenic culture for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory Diagnostic Methods forAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of rectal swabs and fecal samples for the detection ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Performance Evaluation of a Novel Ultrafast Molecular Diagnostic Device Integrated With Microfluidic Chips and Dual Temperature Modules.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- The largely unnoticed spread ofInfection prevention in practice · 2020Review
- Current knowledge on the laboratory diagnosis ofWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNew molecular methods of detecting Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) provide the routine lab with a sensitive random access method to produce results that are available in a shorter time than traditional methods.
methodsIn this prospective study a total of 989 stool specimens were tested over a period of 16 months in parallel using two isothermal amplification assays, AmpliVue® (Quidel) and Illumigene® (Meridian) and the results compared to those from toxigenic culture. In addition all specimens were tested using a cytotoxic cell neutralisation assay (CCNA) and three different Real-time PCR targeting a C. difficile-specific 16S rDNA sequence or the toxin genes tcdA, tcdB/tcdB027 or cdtB.
resultsAmpliVue® was positive in 242 (24.5%) and Illumigene® in 228 (23.1%) specimens. 167 (16.9%) specimens were positive in toxigenic culture. Real-time-tcdA and -tcdB PCR was positive in 211 (21.3%) specimens, Real-time-cdtB PCR was positive in 101 (10.2%) specimens and C. difficile-PCR (16S rDNA) in 267 (27.0%) specimens.
conclusionsThe respective sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value compared to toxigenic culture were 91, 89, 62 and 98% for AmpliVue® and 91, 91, 67 and 98% for Illumigene®.
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.