ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2021
Evaluation of an immunochromatographic test for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection in dogs.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate an immunochromatographic test used to detect glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in dogs. Fecal samples of 119 diarrheic dogs were subjected to toxigenic culture as the "gold standard" method and to GDH detection (Ecodiagnostica, Brazil). Samples positive for toxigenic C. difficile strains and those positive in the GDH test were also subjected to A/B toxin detection using an enzyme immunoassay kit (C. difficile Tox A/B II, Techlab Inc., USA). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were measured for GDH detection and compared with the toxigenic culture results. A total of 19 (15.9%) dogs were positive for toxigenic C. difficile. Of these, 10 (52.6%) dogs were positive for A/B toxins using the enzyme immunoassay kit and 18 (15.2%) were positive in the GDH test, leading to a sensitivity and NPV of 89.4% and 97.9%, respectively. Three animals, two of which were colonized with non-toxigenic strains, were positive for GDH, though not confirmed with CDI, resulting in a high specificity (97%) and PPV (85%). The results suggest that the lateral flow test for GDH detection could be a useful method for diagnosing CDI in dogs, similar to that previously described for humans and other animal species.
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.