Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40377863›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2026

Stool multiplex PCR assay versus conventional stool tests for detecting gastrointestinal infection as a cause for flare of inflammatory bowel disease.

Manek Kutar, Devendra Desai, Philip Abraham, Tarun Gupta, Pavan Dhoble

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Deciphering the Implications ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. A Practical Approach in Differentiating IBD From Other Causes of Enterocolitis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Manek KutarDivision of Gastroenterology, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mahim, Mumbai, 400 016, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9756-2493
Devendra DesaiDivision of Gastroenterology, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mahim, Mumbai, 400 016, India. devendracdesai@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9741-5549
Philip AbrahamDivision of Gastroenterology, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mahim, Mumbai, 400 016, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0604-3306
Tarun GuptaDivision of Gastroenterology, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mahim, Mumbai, 400 016, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2278-207X
Pavan DhobleDivision of Gastroenterology, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mahim, Mumbai, 400 016, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8618-7061

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a flare can be due to natural history of disease or due to gastrointestinal infection. Infection is conventionally diagnosed by stool microscopy and culture. Stool multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay or Biofire® FilmArray

aimsTo compare stool PCR assay and conventional tests during IBD flare for detection of infection, impact of detection on treatment and cost-effectiveness of the tests.

methodsSixty-five patients with IBD flare underwent conventional stool tests (microscopy, culture and Clostridioides difficile toxin assay) and stool PCR assay simultaneously.

resultsWe prospectively enrolled 65 consecutive patients presenting with disease flare: ulcerative colitis (58 patients, 28 women, mean age 41.1 years) and Crohn's disease (seven patients; three women; mean age 36.1). Stool PCR detected organisms in 36 (55.4%) patients as compared to six (9.2%) by conventional tests (p < 0.0001). The organisms detected by the PCR assay were enteroaggregative (EAEC) (22 patients), enteropathogenic (EPEC) (12), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) (5), Plesiomonas shigelloides (4), C. difficile (3), norovirus (3), enteroinvasive E. coli (2), rotavirus (2) and G. lamblia, cryptosporidia, cyclospora, Sapovirus, adenovirus and Entamoeba histolytica (one each). PCR organism detection resulted in management change in 13 (20%) patients as compared to five (7.6%) by conventional tests (p < 0.02). Cost to achieve one positive result on stool PCR that led to management change was INR 60,000 (USD 690, EUR 638) as compared to Indian Rupees (INR) 54,600 (United States Dollar [USD] 627, EUR 580) for conventional tests. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was INR 63,375 (USD 728, EUR 674).

conclusionIn an IBD flare, stool PCR or Biofire® FilmArray

Indexed as

FecesInflammatory Bowel DiseasesMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisCrohn DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultCrohn’s diseaseGastrointestinal infectionInflammatory bowel diseasePCR-based stool testUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

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.