Comparison of BD Max Cdiff and GenomEra C. difficile molecular assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from stools in conventional sample containers and in FecalSwabs
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, ISSN: 1435-4373, Vol: 34, Issue: 5, Page: 1005-1009
2015
- 14Citations
- 17Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations14
- Citation Indexes14
- 14
- CrossRef9
- Captures17
- Readers17
- 17
Article Description
In this study, the usability and performance of GenomEra™ C. difficile and BD Max™ Cdiff nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile were investigated in comparison with toxigenic culture and C. difficile toxin A- and toxin B-detecting immunochromatographic antigen (IA) test, the Tox A/B QuikChek®. In total, 302 faecal specimens were collected, 113 of which were in parallel to conventional sample containers and FecalSwab liquid-based microbiology (LBM) tubes. Seventy-nine specimens were considered true-positives for toxigenic C. difficile. The sensitivity and specificity were 97.5 % and 99.6 % and 93.7 % and 98.7 % for the GenomEra and BD Max assays respectively. Toxigenic culture and Tox A/B QuikChek had sensitivity and specificity of 91.1 % and 100 % and 34.2 % and 100 % respectively. Hands-on time for analysing 1 to 24 specimens using NAATs was 1 to 15 min. The rate of PCR inhibition was 0 % for both NAATs with faeces in LBM tubes, while with faeces in conventional sample containers the respective inhibition rates were 5.3 % and 4.4 % for the GenomEra and the BD Max assays. The NAATs demonstrated an excellent analytical performance, reducing significantly the overall workload of laboratory personnel compared with culture and IA test.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84939950339&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-015-2320-2; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25616552; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10096-015-2320-2; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-015-2320-2; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-015-2320-2
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know