SynthesisPloS one2017
Accuracy of Xpert Clostridium difficile assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: A meta analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Pooled 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
- 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
- Prevalence and Seasonality of Clostridiodes difficile over 12 Years at a Tertiary Hospital in Brazil.Current microbiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Performance of commercial PCR assays to detect toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in the feces of puppies.Veterinary medicine and science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an urgent need for rapid and accurate microbiological diagnostic assay for detection of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert Clostridium difficile assay (Xpert CD) for the diagnosis of CDI.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies according to predetermined criteria. STATA 13.0 software was used to analyze the tests for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies with RevMan 5.2. Heterogeneity in accuracy measures was tested with Spearman correlation coefficient and Chi-square.
resultsA total of 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [CI]) was 0.97 (0.95-0.99) and specificity was 0.95 (0.94-0.96). The AUC was 0.99 (0.97-0.99). Significant heterogeneity was observed when we pooled most of the accuracy measures of selected studies.
conclusionsThe Xpert CD assay is a useful diagnostic tool with high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing toxigenic CDI, and this method has excellent usability due to its rapidity and simplicity.
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.