Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38175470›Full record

ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2024

Diagnostic Guidance for C. difficile Infections.

Joffrey van Prehn, Monique J T Crobach, Amoe Baktash, Nikolas Duszenko, Ed J Kuijper

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joffrey van PrehnDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. J.van_Prehn@lumc.nl.
Monique J T CrobachDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Amoe BaktashDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Nikolas DuszenkoDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ed J KuijperDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University · NLEuropean Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) can be challenging. First of all, there has been debate on which of the two reference assays, cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) or toxigenic culture (TC), should be considered the gold standard for CDI detection. Although the CCNA suffers most from suboptimal storage conditions and subsequent toxin degradation, TC is reported to falsely increase CDI detection rates as it cannot differentiate CDI patients from patients asymptomatically colonised by toxigenic C. difficile. Several rapid assays are available for CDI detection and fall into three broad categories: (1) enzyme immunoassays for glutamate dehydrogenase, (2) enzyme immunoassays or single-molecule array assays for toxins A/B and (3) nucleic acid amplification tests detecting toxin genes. All three categories have their own limitations, being suboptimal specificity and/or sensitivity or the inability to discern colonised patients from CDI patients. In light of these limitations, multi-step algorithmic testing has been advocated by international guidelines (IDSA/SHEA and ESCMID) in order to optimize diagnostic accuracy. As a result, a survey performed in 2018-2019 in Europe revealed that most of all hospital sites reported using more than one test to diagnose CDI. CDI incidence rates are also influenced by sample selection criteria, as several studies have shown that if not all unformed stool samples are tested for CDI, many cases may be missed due to an absence of clinical suspicion. Since methods for diagnosing CDI remain imperfect, there has been a growing interest in alternative testing strategies like faecal microbiota biomarkers, immune modulating interleukins, cytokines and imaging methods. At the moment, these alternative methods might play an adjunctive role, but they are not suitable to replace conventional CDI testing strategies.

Indexed as

Clostridioides difficileAffectBiological AssayCytokinesEuropeHumansCytokines

Identifiers

PMID38175470
OpenAlexW4390581519

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.