SynthesisBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2021
Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile diagnostic assay: an update meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated web-based typing of Clostridioides difficile ribotypes via MALDI-TOF MS.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Analysis of high-molecular-weight proteins using MALDI-TOF MS and machine learning for the differentiation of clinically relevant Clostridioides difficile ribotypes.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate and rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is critical for effective patient management and implementation of infection control measures to prevent transmission.
objectivesWe updated our previous meta-analysis to provide a more reliable evidence base for the clinical diagnosis of Xpert C. difficile (Xpert C. difficile) assay.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) databases to identify studies according to predetermined criteria. STATA 13.0 software was used to analyze the tests for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies with RevMan 5.2. Heterogeneity in accuracy measures was tested with Spearman correlation coefficient and chi-square. Meta-regressions and subgroup analyses were performed to figure out the potential sources of heterogeneity. Model diagnostics were used to evaluate the veracity of the data.
resultsA total of 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for diagnosis was 0.97(0.95-0.98), and specificity was 0.96(0.95-0.97). The AUC was 0.99 (0.98-1.00). Model diagnostics confirmed the robustness of our meta-analysis's results. Significant heterogeneity was still observed when we pooled most of the accuracy measures of selected studies. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed that the sample size and type, ethnicity, and disease prevalence might be the conspicuous sources of heterogeneity.
conclusionsThe up-to-date meta-analysis showed the Xpert CD assay had good accuracy for detecting CDI. However, the diagnosis of CDI must combine clinical presentation with diagnostic testing to better answer the question of whether the patient actually has CDI in the future, and inclusion of preanalytical parameters and clinical outcomes in study design would provide a more objective evidence base.
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.