SynthesisScientific reports2016
Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Impact of switching from polymerase chain reaction-only to two-stepAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Innovative nucleic acid detection ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Testing and Diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Special Scenarios: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Rapid-format recombinant antibody-based methods for the diagnosis ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Evaluation of an immunochromatographic test for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection in dogs.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021Article
- A 2-step algorithm combining glutamate dehydrogenase and nucleic acid amplification tests for the detection of Clostridioides difficile in stool specimens.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B rapid tests for Clostridioides (prev. Clostridium) difficile diagnosis in a university hospital in Minas Gerais, Brazil.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2020Article
- Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis ofClinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020Review
- Enterotoxic Clostridia:Microbiology spectrum · 2019Review
- The Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile Infection in Japan: A Systematic Review.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2018Review
- Rapid change of fecal microbiome and disappearance of Clostridium difficile in a colonized infant after transition from breast milk to cow milk.Microbiome · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) based on the hierarchical model. Two investigators electrically searched four databases. Reference tests were stool cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) and stool toxigenic culture (TC). To assess the overall accuracy, we calculated the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using a DerSimonian-Laird random-model and area the under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (AUC) using Holling's proportional hazard models. The summary estimate of the sensitivity and the specificity were obtained using the bivariate model. According to 42 reports consisting of 3055 reference positive comparisons, and 26188 reference negative comparisons, the DOR was 115 (95%CI: 77-172, I(2) = 12.0%) and the AUC was 0.970 (95%CI: 0.958-0.982). The summary estimate of sensitivity and specificity were 0.911 (95%CI: 0.871-0.940) and 0.912 (95%CI: 0.892-0.928). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 10.4 (95%CI 8.4-12.7) and 0.098 (95%CI 0.066-0.142), respectively. Detecting GDH for the diagnosis of CDI had both high sensitivity and specificity. Considering its low cost and prevalence, it is appropriate for a screening test for CDI.
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.