↓ Skip to main content

Clostridium difficile infection diagnosis in a paediatric population: comparison of methodologies

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Clostridium difficile infection diagnosis in a paediatric population: comparison of methodologies
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10096-014-2108-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Hart, P. Putsathit, D. R. Knight, L. Sammels, T. V. Riley, A. Keil

Abstract

The increasing incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in paediatric hospitalised populations, combined with the emergence of hypervirulent strains, community-acquired CDI and the need for prompt treatment and infection control, makes the rapid, accurate diagnosis of CDI crucial. We validated commonly used C. difficile diagnostic tests in a paediatric hospital population. From October 2011 to January 2012, 150 consecutive stools were collected from 75 patients at a tertiary paediatric hospital in Perth, Western Australia. Stools were tested using: C. Diff Quik Chek Complete, Illumigene C. difficile, GeneOhm Cdiff, cycloserine cefoxitin fructose agar (CCFA) culture, and cell culture cytotoxin neutralisation assay (CCNA). The reference standard was growth on CCFA or Cdiff Chromagar and PCR on isolates to detect tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, and cdtB. Isolates were PCR ribotyped. The prevalence of CDI was high (43 % of patients). Quik Chek Complete glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) demonstrated a low negative predictive value (NPV) (93 %). Both CCNA and Quik Chek Complete toxin A/B had poor sensitivity (33 % and 29 % respectively). Molecular methods both had 89 % sensitivity. Algorithms using GDH + Illumigene or GeneOhm reduced the sensitivity to 85 % and 83 % respectively. Ribotype UK014/20 predominated. GDH NPV and GeneOhm and Illumigene sensitivities were reduced compared with adult studies. Quik Chek Complete and CCNA cannot reliably detect toxigenic CDI. A GDH first algorithm showed reduced sensitivity. In a high prevalence paediatric population, molecular methods alone are recommended over the use of GDH algorithm or culture and CCNA, as they demonstrate the best test performance characteristics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Professor 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,229,658
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2,404
of 2,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,159
of 227,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#39
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.