Literature DB >> 23052320

Evaluation of Clostridium difficile fecal load and limit of detection during a prospective comparison of two molecular tests, the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi tests.

Clare E Gyorke1, Susan Wang, Jhansi L Leslie, Stuart H Cohen, Jay V Solnick, Christopher R Polage.   

Abstract

In a large prospective comparison, the illumigene test detected Clostridium difficile in 98% of toxin-positive and 58% of toxin-negative samples confirmed positive by other methods. The Xpert was uniformly sensitive. Most samples with discrepant results had C. difficile concentrations below the illumigene limit of detection. The significance of low-level C. difficile detection needs investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2012        PMID： 23052320      PMCID： PMC3536201          DOI： 10.1128/JCM.02120-12

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN： 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  14 in total

1.  Rapid and sensitive loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for Clostridium difficile detection challenges cytotoxin B cell test and culture as gold standard.

Authors:  Torbjörn Norén; Ingegärd Alriksson; Josefin Andersson; Thomas Akerlund; Magnus Unemo
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-11-24       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of the cell culture neutralization, Xpert C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile/Epi, and Illumigene C. difficile assays.

Authors:  P Pancholi; C Kelly; M Raczkowski; J M Balada-Llasat
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Prospective evaluation of the Meridian Illumigene™ loop-mediated amplification assay and the Gen Probe ProGastro™ Cd polymerase chain reaction assay for the direct detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from fecal samples.

Authors:  Kirk M Doing; Marilyn S Hintz
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 2.803

Review 4.  Effective utilization of evolving methods for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Anna M Kufelnicka; Thomas J Kirn
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  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

6.  Impact of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of molecular diagnostic and enzyme immunoassay approaches.

Authors:  Fred C Tenover; Susan Novak-Weekley; Christopher W Woods; Lance R Peterson; Thomas Davis; Paul Schreckenberger; Ferric C Fang; Andre Dascal; Dale N Gerding; Jim H Nomura; Richard V Goering; Thomas Akerlund; Alice S Weissfeld; Ellen Jo Baron; Edith Wong; Elizabeth M Marlowe; Joseph Whitmore; David H Persing
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Impact of clinical symptoms on interpretation of diagnostic assays for Clostridium difficile infections.

Authors:  Erik R Dubberke; Zhuolin Han; Linda Bobo; Tiffany Hink; Brenda Lawrence; Susan Copper; Joan Hoppe-Bauer; Carey-Ann D Burnham; William Michael Dunne
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Evaluation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections.

Authors:  Valérie Lalande; Laurence Barrault; Sophie Wadel; Catherine Eckert; Jean-Claude Petit; Frédéric Barbut
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Comparison of commercial molecular assays for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection in stools: BD GeneOhm Cdiff, XPert C. difficile and illumigene C. difficile.

Authors:  Céline Viala; Alban Le Monnier; Naouale Maataoui; Clotilde Rousseau; Anne Collignon; Isabelle Poilane
Journal:  J Microbiol Methods       Date:  2012-04-28       Impact factor: 2.363

Review 10.  Current status of Clostridium difficile infection epidemiology.

Authors:  Fernanda C Lessa; Carolyn V Gould; L Clifford McDonald
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 9.079
View more
  12 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.  Reply to "Comparison of detection methods for Clostridium difficile".

Authors:  P Pancholi; C Kelly; M Raczkowski; J M Balada-Llasat
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 3.  Emerging technologies for the clinical microbiology laboratory.

Authors:  Blake W Buchan; Nathan A Ledeboer
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 26.132

4.  Comparison of Multilocus Sequence Typing and the Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay for Identification of Clostridium difficile 027/NAP1/BI.

Authors:  Tracy McMillen; Mini Kamboj; N Esther Babady
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Utility of a commercial PCR assay and a clinical prediction rule for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in asymptomatic carriers.

Authors:  Curtis J Donskey; Venkata C K Sunkesula; Annette L Jencson; Nimalie D Stone; Carolyn V Gould; L Clifford McDonald; Matthew Samore; Jeanmarie Mayer; Susan Pacheco; Susan Sambol; Laurica Petrella; Deborah Terry; Dale N Gerding
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Correlation between Clostridium difficile bacterial load, commercial real-time PCR cycle thresholds, and results of diagnostic tests based on enzyme immunoassay and cell culture cytotoxicity assay.

Authors:  Léa-Laurence Dionne; Frédéric Raymond; Jacques Corbeil; Jean Longtin; Philippe Gervais; Yves Longtin
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Evaluation of an algorithmic approach in comparison with the Illumigene assay for laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  A Walkty; P R S Lagacé-Wiens; K Manickam; H Adam; P Pieroni; D Hoban; J A Karlowsky; M Alfa
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs) and Algorithms Including NAATs for the Diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in Adults.

Authors:  Colleen S Kraft; J Scott Parrott; Nancy E Cornish; Matthew L Rubinstein; Alice S Weissfeld; Peggy McNult; Irving Nachamkin; Romney M Humphries; Thomas J Kirn; Jennifer Dien Bard; Joseph D Lutgring; Jonathan C Gullett; Cassiana E Bittencourt; Susan Benson; April M Bobenchik; Robert L Sautter; Vickie Baselski; Michel C Atlas; Elizabeth M Marlowe; Nancy S Miller; Monika Fischer; Sandra S Richter; Peter Gilligan; James W Snyder
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 26.132

9.  Biosynthetic enhancement of the detection of bacteria by the polymerase chain reaction.

Authors:  Julie S Do; Kris M Weigel; John S Meschke; Gerard A Cangelosi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Evaluation of Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile Assays for Direct Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Specimens.

Authors:  Bo-Moon Shin; Sun Mee Yoo; Won Chang Shin
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.464
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.