ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
Detection of
Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. 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.
- Review
- Review
- The Current Knowledge onPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Description of antibiotic treatment in adults tested for Clostridioides difficile infection: a single-center case-control study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Is the Medium Still the Message? Culture-Independent Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infections.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Frequency of toxin genes and antibiotic resistance pattern ofGastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2021Article
- Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2020Review
- Diarrhoea in critical care is rarely infective in origin, associated with increased length of stay and higher mortality.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2020Article
- Performance Evaluation of the Luminex Aries C. difficile Assay in Comparison to Two Other Molecular Assays within a Multihospital Health Care Center.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Burden ofIranian journal of public health · 2019Review
- Clostridium difficile-associated Diarrhea in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2019Article
- Searching for a Potential Algorithm for Clostridium difficile Testing at a Tertiary Care Hospital: Does Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay Testing Help?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsAccurate and rapid laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) remains a significant challenge. A two-step algorithm for detection of toxigenic C. difficile in stool based on initial screening for glutamate dehydrogenase assay followed by confirmation by toxin A+B detection using an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or molecular assay has been proposed. We aimed to evaluate the C. difficile Quik Chek Complete® (QCC-EIA) versus the GeneXpert® C. difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay in this two-step algorithm. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred and ten liquid stool samples obtained between June 2014 and June 2015 from patients suspected of CDI were tested by the QCC-EIA and GeneXpert PCR assay. The GeneXpert assay was used as the reference standard to calculate the QCC-EIA sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
resultsOf the 210 stool samples tested, 43 (20.5%) were positive by QCC-EIA, while 31 (14.8%) were positive by GeneXpert assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the QCC-EIA were found to be 100 and 93%, respectively; the PPV and NPV were 72 and 100%, respectively. The binary toxin was detected in 12 (38.7%) and tcdC gene deletion in 3 (9.6%).
conclusionsThe low specificity of QCC-EIA makes it less reliable as a confirmatory test for CDI diagnosis. This test may be used as a screening test in a two-step algorithm when combined with a molecular assay or another confirmatory test.
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.