Literature DB >> 21724296

Diagnostic testing for Clostridium difficile: a comprehensive survey of laboratories in England.

S D Goldenberg1, G L French.   

Abstract

Recent studies have shown poor performance of commonly used toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for laboratory testing for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). In 2009-2010, the UK Health Protection Agency and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases stated that toxin EIA testing alone is suboptimal, and recommended a two-step testing protocol (i.e. screening with one method and confirming the results with another method). All acute English National Health Service trusts were surveyed to determine their testing methods and positivity rates using freedom of information requests. Replies were received from 168 of 170 trusts (99% response rate). Seventy percent of trusts were using a toxin EIA as a standalone testing method, with positive predictive values (PPVs) as low as 20% in some cases. The mean positivity rate decreased from 6.45% in 2008 to 4.47% in 2009, which will have a negative effect on the PPVs of these tests. The UK Department of Health publishes CDI rates as a measure of quality of care and good infection control practice. However, this may not provide valid comparisons because of the wide disparity between testing methods. The present study demonstrates wide variation in testing practices for CDI in England, and laboratories should reconsider their current testing strategies. Crown
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21724296     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2011.03.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hosp Infect        ISSN: 0195-6701            Impact factor:   3.926


  17 in total

1.  Impact of change to molecular testing for Clostridium difficile infection on healthcare facility-associated incidence rates.

Authors:  Rebekah W Moehring; Eric T Lofgren; Deverick J Anderson
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 3.254

2.  A Diagnostic Algorithm for the Detection of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea.

Authors:  Özlem Yoldaş; Mustafa Altındiş; Davut Cufalı; Gülşah Aşık; Recep Keşli
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2016-01-01       Impact factor: 2.021

3.  Clostridium difficile infections in Finland, 2008-2015: trends, diagnostics and ribotypes.

Authors:  S Mentula; S M Kotila; O Lyytikäinen; S Ibrahem; J Ollgren; A Virolainen
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 3.267

4.  An evaluation of the effectiveness of an algorithm intervention in reducing inappropriate faecal samples sent for Clostridium difficile testing.

Authors:  Irene Thompson; Colin Lavelle; Laurence Leonard
Journal:  J Infect Prev       Date:  2016-07-06

5.  Characterisation of Clostridium difficile hospital ward-based transmission using extensive epidemiological data and molecular typing.

Authors:  A Sarah Walker; David W Eyre; David H Wyllie; Kate E Dingle; Rosalind M Harding; Lily O'Connor; David Griffiths; Ali Vaughan; John Finney; Mark H Wilcox; Derrick W Crook; Tim E A Peto
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  Making sense of the shadows: priorities for creating a learning healthcare system based on routinely collected data.

Authors:  Sarah R Deeny; Adam Steventon
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 7.035

7.  Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection.

Authors:  Timothy D Planche; Kerrie A Davies; Pietro G Coen; John M Finney; Irene M Monahan; Kirsti A Morris; Lily O'Connor; Sarah J Oakley; Cassie F Pope; Mike W Wren; Nandini P Shetty; Derrick W Crook; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 25.071

8.  Contribution to Clostridium Difficile Transmission of Symptomatic Patients With Toxigenic Strains Who Are Fecal Toxin Negative.

Authors:  Damian P C Mawer; David W Eyre; David Griffiths; Warren N Fawley; Jessica S H Martin; T Phuong Quan; Timothy E A Peto; Derrick W Crook; A Sarah Walker; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Comparison of a frozen human foreskin fibroblast cell assay to an enzyme immunoassay and toxigenic culture for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Alastair J Strachan; Natalie E Evans; O Martin Williams; Robert C Spencer; Rosemary Greenwood; Chris J Probert
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 2.803

10.  How do hospital professionals involved in a randomised controlled trial perceive the value of genotyping vs. PCR-ribotyping for control of hospital acquired C. difficile infections?

Authors:  Ala Szczepura; Susan Manzoor; Katherine Hardy; Nigel Stallard; Helen Parsons; Savita Gossain; Peter M Hawkey
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 3.090

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.