Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32363568›Full record

ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2020

Immunochromatographic test and ELISA for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and A/B toxins as an alternative for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile-associated diarrhea in foals and neonatal piglets.

Carolina Pantuzza Ramos, Emily Oliveira Lopes, Carlos Augusto Oliveira Júnior, Amanda Nádia Diniz, Francisco Carlos Faria Lobato, Rodrigo Otávio Silveira Silva

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Diagnostic Approach to Enteric Disorders in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carolina Pantuzza RamosVeterinary School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Antônio Carlos Avenue, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2792-058X
Emily Oliveira LopesVeterinary School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Antônio Carlos Avenue, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8205-8465
Carlos Augusto Oliveira JúniorVeterinary School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Antônio Carlos Avenue, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-0746
Amanda Nádia DinizVeterinary School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Antônio Carlos Avenue, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5287-5779
Francisco Carlos Faria LobatoVeterinary School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Antônio Carlos Avenue, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0656-1285
Rodrigo Otávio Silveira SilvaVeterinary School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Antônio Carlos Avenue, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. rodrigo.otaviosilva@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0074-2488
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BR

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico Premio Capes 2015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering the lack of studies evaluating the performance of commercially available methods for diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) in animals, the present study aimed to assess an immunochromatographic test for detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and A/B toxins of C. difficile, also evaluated by an ELISA kit, in foals and neonatal piglets. Intestinal contents of 47 piglets and feces of 35 foals were tested to GDH antigen and A/B toxins in a lateral flow method (Ecodiagnostica, Brazil). Also, these samples were submitted to A/B toxin detection by an ELISA kit (C. difficile Tox A/B II, Techlab Inc., USA), using the toxigenic culture (TC) as the reference method. The GDH component of the lateral flow test showed sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% and a high specificity in samples of piglets (82.61%) and foals (100%). Detection of A/B toxins using the lateral flow test and the ELISA resulted in a specificity of 100% in samples of both species. On the other hand, the sensibility ranged from 54.2 to 90% for the ELISA and from 12.5 to 60% for the lateral flow test for piglets' and foals' samples, respectively. In conclusion, the present work suggests that the lateral flow test for GDH detection could be a useful method for diagnosing CDI in these species. On the other hand, the low sensitivity of the lateral flow test for A/B toxins might compromise its utility in piglets.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, NewbornBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsBrazilClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsDiarrheaEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFecesGlutamate DehydrogenaseHorse DiseasesHorsesImmunoassaySwineSwine DiseasesBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsGlutamate DehydrogenaseColitisHorsesNosocomial diarrheaSwine

Identifiers

PMID32363568
PMCPMC7455628
OpenAlexW3022398549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.