ArticlePloS one2017
Prevalence of binary toxin positive Clostridium difficile in diarrhoeal humans in the absence of epidemic ribotype 027.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparative genomics of zoonotic pathogen3 Biotech · 2024Article
- Temporal Variations in Patterns ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Phenotypical and Genotypical Comparison ofThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2021Article
- Article
- Prevalence of binary-toxin genes (Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Virulence of Clostridium difficile is primarily attributed to the large clostridial toxins A and B while the role of binary toxin (CDT) remains unclear. The prevalence of human strains of C. difficile possessing only CDT genes (A-B-CDT+) is generally low (< 5%), however, this genotype is commonly found in neonatal livestock both in Australia and elsewhere. Zoonotic transmission of C. difficile has been suggested previously. Most human diagnostic tests will not detect A-B-CDT+ strains of C. difficile because they focus on detection of toxin A and/or B. We performed a prospective investigation into the prevalence and genetic characteristics of A-B-CDT+ C. difficile in symptomatic humans. All glutamate dehydrogenase or toxin B gene positive faecal specimens from symptomatic inpatients over 30 days (n = 43) were cultured by enrichment, and C. difficile PCR ribotypes (RTs) and toxin gene profiles determined. From 39 culture-positive specimens, 43 C. difficile isolates were recovered, including two A-B-CDT+ isolates. This corresponded to an A-B-CDT+ prevalence of 2/35 (5.7%) isolates possessing at least one toxin, 2/10 (20%) A-B- isolates, 2/3 CDT+ isolates and 1/28 (3.6%) presumed true CDI cases. No link to Australian livestock-associated C. difficile was found. Neither A-B-CDT+ isolate was the predominant A-B-CDT+ strain found in Australia, RT 033, nor did they belong to toxinotype XI. Previous reports infrequently describe A-B-CDT+ C. difficile in patients and strain collections but the prevalence of human A-B-CDT+ C. difficile is rarely investigated. This study highlights the occurrence of A-B-CDT+ strains of C. difficile in symptomatic patients, warranting further investigations of its role in human infection.
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.