Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28181032›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2017

Comprehensive evaluation of chemiluminescent immunoassays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

A Makristathis, I Zeller, D Mitteregger, M Kundi, A M Hirschl

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Laboratory Diagnostic Methods forAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Advances in diagnostic assays forFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis ofClinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020
    Review
  5. Simultaneous Detection ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A MakristathisDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. athanasios.makristathis@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1593-571X
I ZellerDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
D MittereggerDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
M KundiDepartment of Environmental Hygiene, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
A M HirschlDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For the microbiological diagnosis of a Clostridium (C.) difficile infection (CDI), a two-test algorithm consisting of a C. difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)-immunoassay followed by a toxin-immunoassay in positive cases is widely used. In this study, two chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs), one for GDH and the other for the toxins A and B, have been evaluated systematically using appropriate reference methods. Three-hundred diarrhoeal stool specimens submitted for CDI diagnosis were analysed by the LIAISON CLIAs (DiaSorin). Toxigenic culture (TC) and cell cytotoxicity assay (CCTA) were used as "gold standard" reference methods. In addition, GDH and toxin A and B enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), C. diff Chek-60 and toxin A/B II (TechLab), and the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were performed. C. difficile was grown in 42 (14%), TC was positive in 35 (11.7%) and CCTA in 25 (8.3%) cases. CLIAs were more sensitive but less specific than the respective EIAs. Using culture as reference, the sensitivity of the GDH CLIA was 100%. In comparison to CCTA sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the two-test algorithm were 88, 99.3, 91.7 and 98.9% by CLIAs and 72, 99.6, 94.7 and 97.5% by EIAs. Discrepant results by CLIAs were more frequent than that by EIAs (9% vs. 6.3%); in those cases, PCR allowed for the accurate detection of toxigenic strains. Due to performance characteristics and testing comfort, CLIAs in combination with PCR represent a favourable option for the rapid laboratory C. difficile diagnostics.

Indexed as

Luminescent MeasurementsADP Ribose TransferasesBacterial ProteinsClinical Laboratory TechniquesClostridium InfectionsGlutamate DehydrogenaseHumansImmunoassayPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and Specificityactin-specific ADP-ribosyltransferase, ClostridiumADP Ribose TransferasesBacterial ProteinsGlutamate Dehydrogenase

Identifiers

PMID28181032
PMCPMC5495843
OpenAlexW2586563734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.