Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31315581›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2019

Experiences from multiplex PCR diagnostics of faeces in hospitalised patients: clinical significance of Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) and culture negative campylobacter.

Jan-Erik Berdal, Benoit Follin-Arbelet, Jørgen Vildershøj Bjørnholt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. EnteropathogenicClinical case reports · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Epidemiology of gastrointestinal infections: lessons learned from syndromic testing, Region Zealand, Denmark.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Pathophysiology of enteropathogenicJournal of veterinary science · 2022
    Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jan-Erik BerdalDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Akershus University Hospital, PO Box 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Nordbyhagen, Norway. jan.erik.berdal@ahus.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7299-6199
Benoit Follin-ArbeletPresent Address: Institute of Oral Biology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jørgen Vildershøj BjørnholtInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn hospitalised patients with diarrhoea a positive campylobacter stool Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test with negative culture results as well as Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) positive stool PCRs, challenges the clinician and may lead the unexperienced clinician astray. The aim of the study was to elucidate the clinical significance of positive Campylobacter and/or EPEC test results in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective case-case study. Case groups with 1) EPEC only and 2) EPEC in combination with any other pathogen in the PCR multiplex array, 3) PCR positive/culture negative Campylobacter, and 4) PCR positive/culture positive Campylobacter were compared. Medical records were reviewed and cases classified according to pre-specified clinical criteria as infectious gastroenteritis or non-infectious causes for diarrhoea. We analyzed the association between laboratory findings (the 4 subgroups) and the pre-specified clinical classification. We further sequenced culture negative campylobacter samples and tested EPEC for bundle forming pilus A (bfpA) gene, distinguishing typical from atypical EPEC.

resultsA total of 291 patients were included, 169 were PCR positive for Campylobacter and 122 for EPEC. For both pathogens, co-infections were more common in culture negative/PCR positive samples than in culture positive samples. Clinical characteristics differed significantly in and between groups. Campylobacter culture positive patients had very high prevalence of characteristics of acute infectious gastroenteritis, whereas patients with PCR positive test results only often had an alternative explanation for their diarrhoea. Culture positives were almost exclusively C. jejuni/coli, whereas in culture negatives, constituting a third of the total PCR positives, C. concisus was the most frequent species. The vast majority of EPEC only positives had documented non-infectious factors that could explain diarrhoea. The EPEC co-infected group mimicked the culture positive campylobacter group, with most patients fulfilling the infectious gastroenteritis criteria.

conclusionsIn hospitalised patients, positive PCR results for campylobacter and EPEC should be interpreted in a clinical context after evaluation of non-infectious diarrhoea associated conditions, and cannot be used as a stand-alone diagnostic tool.

Indexed as

AgedBacteriological TechniquesCampylobacterDiarrheaEnteropathogenic Escherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsFecesFemaleGastroenteritisHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionNorwayRetrospective StudiesCampylobacterDiagnostic testsDiarrhoeaEnteropathogenic Escherichia coliGastroenteritis

Identifiers

PMID31315581
PMCPMC6637723
OpenAlexW2959011911

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.