Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 593

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Molecular Test Era

Open access
Polage, Christopher R., Gyorke, Clare E., Kennedy, Michael A., Leslie, Jhansi L., Chin, David L., Wang, Susan, Nguyen, Hien H., Huang, Bin, Tang, Yi-Wei, Lee, Lenora W., Kim, Kyoungmi, Taylor, Sandra, Romano, Patrick S., Panacek, Edward A., Goodell, Parker B., Solnick, Jay V., Cohen, Stuart H.·2015·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Clostridium difficile is a major cause of health care-associated infection, but disagreement between diagnostic tests is an ongoing barrier to clinical decision making and public health reporting. Molecular tests are increasingly used to diagnose C difficile infection (CDI), but many molecular test-positive patients lack toxins that historically defined disease, making it unclear if they need treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the natural history and need for treatment of patients who are toxin immunoassay negative and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive (Tox-/PCR+) for CDI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational cohort study at a single academic medical center among 1416 hospitalized adults tested for C difficile toxins 72 hours or longer after admission between December 1, 2010, and October 20, 2012. The analysis was conducted in stages with revisions from April 27, 2013, to January 13, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients undergoing C difficile testing were grouped by US Food and Drug Administration-approved toxin and PCR tests as Tox+/PCR+, Tox-/PCR+, or Tox-/PCR-. Toxin results were reported clinically. Polymerase chain reaction results were not reported. The main study outcomes were duration of diarrhea during up to 14 days of treatment, rate of CDI-related complications (ie, colectomy, megacolon, or intensive care unit care) and CDI-related death within 30 days. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent (293 of 1416) of hospitalized adults tested for C difficile were positive by PCR, but 44.7% (131 of 293) had toxins detected by the clinical toxin test. At baseline, Tox-/PCR+ patients had lower C difficile bacterial load and less antibiotic exposure, fecal inflammation, and diarrhea than Tox+/PCR+ patients (P < .001 for all). The median duration of diarrhea was shorter in Tox-/PCR+ patients (2 days; interquartile range, 1-4 days) than in Tox+/PCR+ patients (3 days; interquartile range, 1-6 days) (P = .003) and was similar to that in Tox-/PCR- patients (2 days; interquartile range, 1-3 days), despite minimal empirical treatment of Tox-/PCR+ patients. No CDI-related complications occurred in Tox-/PCR+ patients vs 10 complications in Tox+/PCR+ patients (0% vs 7.6%, P < .001). One Tox-/PCR+ patient had recurrent CDI as a contributing factor to death within 30 days vs 11 CDI-related deaths in Tox+/PCR+ patients (0.6% vs 8.4%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among hospitalized adults with suspected CDI, virtually all CDI-related complications and deaths occurred in patients with positive toxin immunoassay test results. Patients with a positive molecular test result and a negative toxin immunoassay test result had outcomes that were comparable to patients without C difficile by either method. Exclusive reliance on molecular tests for CDI diagnosis without tests for toxins or host response is likely to result in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and increased health care costs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4114

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 593

Metadata

Authors
Polage, C. R., Gyorke, C. E., Kennedy, M. A., Leslie, J. L., Chin, D. L., Wang, S., Nguyen, H. H., Huang, B., Tang, Y.-W., Lee, L. W., Kim, K., Taylor, S., Romano, P. S., Panacek, E. A., Goodell, P. B., Solnick, J. V., & Cohen, S. H.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2015-11-01
Volume
175
Issue
11
Pages
1792
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2167805911
Cited by
593
References
42
FWCI
49.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Molecular Test Era. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4114
The paper
Polage, C. R., Gyorke, C. E., Kennedy, M. A., Leslie, J. L., Chin, D. L., Wang, S., Nguyen, H. H., Huang, B., Tang, Y.-W., Lee, L. W., Kim, K., Taylor, S., Romano, P. S., Panacek, E. A., Goodell, P. B., Solnick, J. V., & Cohen, S. H. (2015). Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Molecular Test Era. JAMA Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4114

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.