ArticlePloS one2018
Comparison of qPCR versus culture for the detection and quantification of Clostridium difficile environmental contamination.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Evaluation of Exosporium-Anchored Bioluminescent and Fluorescent Reporters for TrackingACS synthetic biology · 2026Article
- The effects of irrigation on the survival of3 Biotech · 2024Article
- Prevalence, Antimicrobial Resistance and Toxin-Encoding Genes ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- IL-17-producing γδ T cells protect against Clostridium difficile infection.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2020Article
- Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin induces claudin-4 to activate YAP in oral squamous cell carcinomas.Oncotarget · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Contaminated surfaces serve as an important reservoir for Clostridium difficile transmission. Current strategies to detect environmental contamination of C. difficile rely heavily on culture, and often only indicate presence versus absence of spores. The goal of this study was to compare quantitative PCR (qPCR) to culture for the detection and quantification of C. difficile from inert surfaces. First, we compared the limit of detection (LOD) of a 16S rRNA gene and toxin B gene qPCR assay for detection of C. difficile in solution. Second, we compared the LODs of 16S rRNA gene qPCR versus culture for detection of C. difficile from surfaces. Solution experiments were performed by direct seeding of spores into neutralizing broth, whereas surface experiments involved seeding of spores onto plastic test surfaces, and recovery using sponge swabs. Both experiments were conducted using spores expressing short (NAP1) and long (NAP4) hair lengths. Combining data from both strains, the overall LOD for C. difficile cells in solution was 1.4 cells for 16S rRNA gene and 23.6 cells for toxin B gene qPCR (p<0.001). The overall LOD for C. difficile cells from surfaces was 17.1 cells for 16S rRNA gene qPCR and 54.5 cells for culture (p = 0.05), and was not statistically different between strains for each method (p = 0.52). Overall, the proportion of C. difficile cells recovered from surfaces was good when detected by 16S rRNA gene qPCR and culture (qPCR: 76%, culture: 67%, p = 0.36), but, 16S rRNA gene qPCR was capable of detecting lower levels of surface contamination. Future work attempting to measure the presence of C. difficile on environmental surfaces should consider using qPCR.
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.