ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1998
Comparison of restriction enzyme analysis, arbitrarily primed PCR, and protein profile analysis typing for epidemiologic investigation of an ongoing Clostridium difficile outbreak.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Update on Commonly Used Molecular Typing Methods forMicroorganisms · 2023Review
- Rapid molecular characterization of Clostridium difficile and assessment of populations of C. difficile in stool specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During an outbreak of diarrhea in a general hospital in 1992, 166 Clostridium difficile isolates from 102 patients were typed by restriction enzyme analysis (REA), arbitrarily primed PCR (AP-PCR), and protein profile analysis (PP) techniques. A total of 18 types and 5 subtypes were identified by REA, 32 types were identified by AP-PCR, and 9 types were identified by PP. Analysis of the data indicated the presence of a predominant strain among 76, 75, and 84% of the isolates by REA, AP-PCR, and PP, respectively. Subsequently, 45 C. difficile isolates which had been collected in 1990 from 33 patients in the same hospital following a significant increase in the number of cases of diarrhea caused by C. difficile were studied by REA, AP-PCR, and PP typing techniques. Thirteen types and one subtype were identified by REA, 12 types were identified by AP-PCR, and 5 types were identified by PP. As with the isolates from 1992, a dominant strain was identified. This strain was represented by 53, 64, and 70% of the total number of isolates when the strains were typed by REA, AP-PCR, and PP, respectively. Every isolate (210 of 211) from both 1990 and 1992 that was available for typing was typeable by all three methods. Furthermore, the same dominant strain was identified in both 1990 and 1992 by each method. This study demonstrates that each of the three typing methods can be useful in epidemiologic investigations of C. difficile outbreaks and that one strain can be dominant in an institution over a number of years.
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.