Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36991280›Full record

ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2023

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection in symptomatic patients: what can we do better?

Adriane C Maestri, Keite S Nogueira, Rafael Mialski, Erika Medeiros Dos Santos, Leticia Kraft, Sonia M Raboni

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Advances in diagnostic assays forFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adriane C Maestri, Laboratório de Bacteriologia, Complexo Hospital de Clínicas da Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua Padre Camargo, 280-Alto da Glória, CEP: 80.062-240, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Keite S Nogueira, Laboratório de Bacteriologia, Complexo Hospital de Clínicas da Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua Padre Camargo, 280-Alto da Glória, CEP: 80.062-240, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Rafael MialskiDepartamento de Infectologia, Complexo Hospital de Clínicas da Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua General Carneiro, 181-Alto da Glória, CEP-80060-900, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Erika Medeiros Dos SantosHospital Pequeno Principe, Rua Desembargador Motta, 1070-Agua Verde, Curitiba-PR, 80250-060, Brazil.
Leticia KraftHospital Pequeno Principe, Rua Desembargador Motta, 1070-Agua Verde, Curitiba-PR, 80250-060, Brazil.
Sonia M RaboniPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Medicina Interna e Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua General Carneiro, 181-Alto da Glória, CEP-80060-900, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. raboni.sonia@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7907-7585
Hospital de Clínicas Universidade Federal do Paraná · BRHospital Erasto Gaertner · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is challenging since this bacteria may be detected in healthy people and toxin production detection is not sensitive enough to be used alone. Thus, there is no single test with adequate sensitivity and specificity to be used in laboratory diagnosis. We evaluated the performance of tests used in the diagnosis of CDI in symptomatic patients with risk factors in hospitals in southern Brazil. Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (GDH) and toxins A/B, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), GeneXpert system, and a two-step algorithm comprising GDH/TOXIN EIA performed simultaneously followed by GeneXpert for outliers were evaluated. Toxigenic strain in stool culture was considered CDI positive (gold standard). Among 400 samples tested, 54 (13.5%) were positive for CDI and 346 (86.5%) were negative. The diagnosis of the two-step algorithm and qPCR had an excellent performance with an accuracy of 94.5% and 94.2%, respectively. The Youden index showed that GeneXpert as a single test (83.5%) and the two-step algorithm (82.8%) were the most effective assays. Diagnosing CDI and non-CDI diarrhea could be successfully attained by the combination of clinical data with accuracy of laboratory tests.

Indexed as

Bacterial ToxinsClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsBacterial ProteinsClinical Laboratory TechniquesEnterotoxinsFecesGlutamate DehydrogenaseHumansReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsEnterotoxinsGlutamate DehydrogenaseAntimicrobial-associated diarrheaGastrointestinal infectionGDH detectionToxin A/B

Identifiers

PMID36991280
PMCPMC10234961
OpenAlexW4361283468

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.