ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2025
Comparison of Anaerobic Culture Methods for Detecting Clostridioides difficile in Bovine Faeces.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe study of the epidemiology of Clostridioides difficile in populations is greatly facilitated by the ability to isolate and further characterize individual organisms, which requires effective culture protocols. In cattle, where little is known about the epidemiology of C. difficile, no studies have assessed or compared the performance of different assays for detecting C. difficile.
objectivesThis study compared two culture protocols for detecting C. difficile in bovine faeces from 121 gestating cows and 70 of their neonatal calves, while situating results obtained with each protocol relative to those obtained with shotgun metagenomic sequencing.
methodsProtocol 1 involved direct plating enrichment onto taurocholine-cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar (TCCFA), while Protocol 2 included an ethanol shock step before plating on CCFA/ChromID agar. For both protocols, one aliquot underwent broth enrichment prior to plating, while the other aliquot did not.
resultsClostridioides difficile was detected following broth enrichment in two of the same calf samples using both protocols, and an additional cow sample was found to be positive with Protocol 2, though the difference in detection rates was not statistically significant (p = 1.0).
conclusionsThe detection of C. difficile in a much high number of these samples by shotgun metagenomics, albeit at low levels of relative abundance, suggests that neither of these culture protocols is sensitive when levels of abundance are low.
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.