ArticlePloS one2016
Comparison of Diagnostic Algorithms for Detecting Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Routine Practice at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Korea.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Clinical evaluation of rapid fluorescent diagnostic immunochromatographic test for influenza A virus (H1N1).Scientific reports · 2018Trial
- 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
- Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and XpertJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential inWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Rapid-format recombinant antibody-based methods for the diagnosis ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Significance of a polymerase chain reaction method in the detection of Clostridioides difficile.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2021Article
- Using diagnostic stewardship to reduce rates, healthcare expenditures and accurately identify cases of hospital-onsetInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 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
- Investigation of Intestinal Microbiota and Fecal Calprotectin in Non-Toxigenic and ToxigenicMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- A Two-Step Approach for Diagnosing Glutamate Dehydrogenase Genes by Conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction fromMiddle East journal of digestive diseases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since every single test has some limitations for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile, multistep algorithms are recommended. This study aimed to compare the current, representative diagnostic algorithms for detecting toxigenic C. difficile, using VIDAS C. difficile toxin A&B (toxin ELFA), VIDAS C. difficile GDH (GDH ELFA, bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France), and Xpert C. difficile (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California, USA). In 271 consecutive stool samples, toxigenic culture, toxin ELFA, GDH ELFA, and Xpert C. difficile were performed. We simulated two algorithms: screening by GDH ELFA and confirmation by Xpert C. difficile (GDH + Xpert) and combined algorithm of GDH ELFA, toxin ELFA, and Xpert C. difficile (GDH + Toxin + Xpert). The performance of each assay and algorithm was assessed. The agreement of Xpert C. difficile and two algorithms (GDH + Xpert and GDH+ Toxin + Xpert) with toxigenic culture were strong (Kappa, 0.848, 0.857, and 0.868, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of algorithms (GDH + Xpert and GDH + Toxin + Xpert) were 96.7%, 95.8%, 85.0%, 98.1%, and 94.5%, 95.8%, 82.3%, 98.5%, respectively. There were no significant differences between Xpert C. difficile and two algorithms in sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. The performances of both algorithms for detecting toxigenic C. difficile were comparable to that of Xpert C. difficile. Either algorithm would be useful in clinical laboratories and can be optimized in the diagnostic workflow of C. difficile depending on costs, test volume, and clinical needs.
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.