Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30040852›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Performance comparison of the cobas Liat and Cepheid GeneXpert systems for Clostridium difficile detection.

Paul A Granato, Glen Hansen, Emily Herding, Sheena Chaudhuri, Shaowu Tang, Sachin K Garg, Catherine R Rowell, Joanna Jackson Sickler

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

8 authors.

Paul A GranatoDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Laboratory Alliance of Central New York, Syracuse, NY, United States of America.
Glen HansenDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Diagnostics, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.
Emily HerdingDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.
Sheena ChaudhuriMedical and Scientific Affairs, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, United States of America.
Shaowu TangMedical and Scientific Affairs, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, United States of America.
Sachin K GargMedical and Scientific Affairs, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, United States of America.
Catherine R RowellDepartment of Laboratory Device Trials, Laboratory Alliance of Central New York, Syracuse, NY, United States of America.
Joanna Jackson SicklerMedical and Scientific Affairs, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a high burden and significant cause of healthcare-acquired infectious diarrhea in the United States (US). Timely and accurate diagnosis of CDI enables the rapid initiation of antibiotic therapy and infection control policies to minimize disease transmission. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays have become a preferred modality for diagnosing CDI in the US. The cobas Liat Cdiff PCR test is a novel assay that can be performed on-demand for hospital-based testing with a rapid 20-minute turnaround time from specimen collection to result reporting. We compared the clinical performance of the cobas Liat Cdiff test to the previously introduced Xpert C. difficile/Epi test; both tests are FDA-cleared PCR assays that detect the toxin B (tcdB) gene of C. difficile. Prospectively collected and remnant stool specimens from 310 patients with suspected CDI were obtained for analysis. The cobas Liat Cdiff and Xpert PCR tests showed an overall percent agreement of 97.4% (302/310; 95% CI: 95.0-98.9). Low bacterial burdens of toxigenic C. difficile, indicated by significantly delayed PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, explained most of the discordance. Positive and negative percent agreement of the cobas Liat Cdiff test compared to the Xpert PCR test were 94.5% (52/55) and 98.0% (250/255), respectively. The clinical performance of the cobas Liat Cdiff test, combined with its simplicity of use and rapid result reporting, provides a reliable option for clinical laboratory use.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsEnterotoxinsFecesHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsEnterotoxins

Identifiers

PMID30040852
PMCPMC6057633

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.