ArticleBMC infectious diseases2016
False Negative Results in Clostridium difficile Testing.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Clostridium difficile Infection Versus Colonization on Postoperative Outcomes After Oncological Colorectal Surgery: An Observational Single-Center Study With Propensity Score Analysis.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Observational
- Positive pathogens in stool could predict the clinical outcomes of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury in critical ill patient.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Informing estimates of probability ofAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
- A Rare Case of Polymerase Chain Reaction-Negative Severe Clostridioides difficile Infection.Cureus · 2023Article
- Article
- Low-toxinEmerging microbes & infections · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Methods ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Case of Postoperative Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Enterocolitis in an 81-Year-Old Man and Review of the Literature.The American journal of case reports · 2020Review
- Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infections.Emerging microbes & infections · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is paramount for patient management. The wrong diagnosis places patients at risk, delays treatment, and/ or contributes to transmission of infection in the healthcare setting. Although amplification of the toxin B gene by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a sensitive method for detecting toxigenic C. difficile, false negative results still occur and could impact the diagnosis and treatment of this infection.
methodsThis study investigated 48 patients that tested negative for toxigenic C. difficile via GeneXpert C. difficile epi test, while simultaneously testing positive for toxigenic C. difficile via stool culture. Fifty discrepant samples were collected over a 15-month period and all C. difficile isolates were characterized by ribotype. Patient charts were reviewed to assess whether discrepant results impacted the treatment course or clinical outcome of affected patients.
resultsFifty samples of a total of 2308 samples tested in an acute healthcare facility over a 15-month period had negative PCR and positive stool culture for toxigenic C. difficile. C. difficile isolated from the discrepant samples resulted in diverse ribotyping patterns suggesting they were derived from different strains. The samples belonged to patients who were distributed evenly between age groups and wards in the hospital. In the majority of cases, the false negative C. difficile test results did not seem to impact the clinical outcome in these patients.
conclusionsThe PCR limit of detection may impact the results of molecular methods for C. difficile detection. Both clinical and analytical sensitivity of C. difficile tests should be considered when deciding which diagnostic assay to use, and clinical correlates should be examined carefully before excluding CDI as a cause of disease.
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.