Literature DB >> 20542211

Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in diarrheal stools by rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction.

Simon D Goldenberg1, Thomas Dieringer, Gary L French.   

Abstract

The Cepheid Xpert polymerase chain reaction assay (Sunnyvale, CA) had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96.7%, and positive and negative predictive values of 90.5% and 100%, respectively, compared with toxigenic culture for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile in diarrheal stool samples. This test appears to be a significant improvement to poorly performing enzyme immunoassays.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2010        PMID： 20542211     DOI： 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.02.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN： 0732-8893            Impact factor:   2.803


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile as confirmatory tests in a multistep algorithm for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Luis Alcalá; Elena Reigadas; Mercedes Marín; Antonia Fernández-Chico; Pilar Catalán; Emilio Bouza
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Glutamate dehydrogenase for laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Simon D Goldenberg; Penny R Cliff; Gary L French
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Easily modified factors contribute to delays in diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: a cohort study and intervention.

Authors:  Sirisha Kundrapu; Lucy A Jury; Brett Sitzlar; Venkata C K Sunkesula; Ajay K Sethi; Curtis J Donskey
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection.

Authors:  Bobby L Boyanton; Preethi Sural; Caroline R Loomis; Christine Pesta; Laura Gonzalez-Krellwitz; Barbara Robinson-Dunn; Paul Riska
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 5.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories.

Authors:  Carey-Ann D Burnham; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 26.132

6.  C. difficile ribotype 027 or 176?

Authors:  Marcela Krutova; Jana Matejkova; Otakar Nyc
Journal:  Folia Microbiol (Praha)       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 2.099

7.  Prevalence and pathogenicity of binary toxin-positive Clostridium difficile strains that do not produce toxins A and B.

Authors:  C Eckert; A Emirian; A Le Monnier; L Cathala; H De Montclos; J Goret; P Berger; A Petit; A De Chevigny; H Jean-Pierre; B Nebbad; S Camiade; R Meckenstock; V Lalande; H Marchandin; F Barbut
Journal:  New Microbes New Infect       Date:  2014-11-08

8.  Indeterminate tcdB using a Clostridium difficile PCR assay: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jerome A Leis; Wayne L Gold; John Ng; Zahir Hirji; Dylan R Pillai; George Broukhanski; Paula Raggiunti; Susy Hota; Allison McGeer; Susan M Poutanen
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 3.090

9.  Accuracy of Xpert Clostridium difficile assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: A meta analysis.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Bai; Xiaorong Sun; Yan Jin; Yueling Wang; Juan Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Comprehensive evaluation of chemiluminescent immunoassays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  A Makristathis; I Zeller; D Mitteregger; M Kundi; A M Hirschl
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 3.267
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.