ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2017
Detection of Clostridium difficile in Feces of Asymptomatic Patients Admitted to the Hospital.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical significance of toxin EIA positivity in patients with suspectedJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- A New Convenient Method to Assess Antibiotic Resistance and Antimicrobial Efficacy against PathogenicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential inWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Risk factors for colonization with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria andFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Towards Development of a Non-ToxigenicPharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Faecal carriage ofEpidemiology and infection · 2022Article
- Genomic Determination of Relative Risks for Clostridioides difficile Infection From Asymptomatic Carriage in Intensive Care Unit Patients.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Methods ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Microbiota-associated risk factors for asymptomatic gut colonisation with multi-drug-resistant organisms in a Dutch nursing home.Genome medicine · 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
- Computational modeling of the gut microbiota reveals putative metabolic mechanisms of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Immune response againstTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Review
- The Bacterial Gut Microbiota of Adult Patients Infected, Colonized or Noncolonized byMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Origin, genomic diversity and microevolution of theMicrobial genomics · 2020Article
- Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis ofClinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020Review
- A Two-Step Approach for Diagnosing Glutamate Dehydrogenase Genes by Conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction fromMiddle East journal of digestive diseases · 2019Article
- Detection of toxigenicJournal of medical microbiology · 2018Article
- Validation of Active Surveillance Testing for Clostridium difficile Colonization Using the cobas Cdiff Test.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Quantitation as Predictor of Toxin Presence in Clostridium difficile Infection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent evidence shows that patients asymptomatically colonized with Clostridium difficile may contribute to the transmission of C. difficile in health care facilities. Additionally, these patients may have a higher risk of developing C. difficile infection. The aim of this study was to compare a commercially available PCR directed to both toxin A and B (artus C. difficile QS-RGQ kit CE; Qiagen), an enzyme-linked fluorescent assay to glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH ELFA) (Vidas, bioMérieux), and an in-house-developed PCR to tcdB, with (toxigenic) culture of C. difficile as the gold standard to detect asymptomatic colonization. Test performances were evaluated in a collection of 765 stool samples obtained from asymptomatic patients at admission to the hospital. The C. difficile prevalence in this collection was 5.1%, and 3.1% contained toxigenic C. difficile Compared to C. difficile culture, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the C. difficile GDH ELFA were 87.2%, 91.2%, 34.7%, and 99.3%, respectively. Compared with results of toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the commercially available PCR and the in-house PCR were 95.8%, 93.4%, 31.9%, 99.9%, and 87.5%, 98.8%, 70%, and 99.6%, respectively. We conclude that in a low-prevalence setting of asymptomatically colonized patients, both GDH ELFA and a nucleic acid amplification test can be applied as a first screening test, as they both display a high NPV. However, the low PPV of the tests hinders the use of these assays as stand-alone tests.
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.