Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Planche, Timothy D, Davies, Kerrie A, Coen, Pietro G, Finney, John M, Monahan, Irene M, Morris, Kirsti A, O'Connor, Lily, Oakley, Sarah J, Pope, Cassie F, Wren, Mike W, Shetty, Nandini P, Crook, Derrick W, Wilcox, Mark H·2013·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individuals can have the bacterium but no free toxin) than does the cytotoxin assay, which detects preformed toxin in faeces. We aimed to validate the reference methods according to clinical outcomes and to derive an optimum laboratory diagnostic algorithm for C difficile infection. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre study, we did cytotoxigenic culture and cytotoxin assays on 12,420 faecal samples in four UK laboratories. We also performed tests that represent the three main targets for C difficile detection: bacterium (glutamate dehydrogenase), toxins, or toxin genes. We used routine blood test results, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality to clinically validate the reference methods. Data were categorised by reference method result: group 1, cytotoxin assay positive; group 2, cytotoxigenic culture positive and cytotoxin assay negative; and group 3, both reference methods negative. FINDINGS: Clinical and reference assay data were available for 6522 inpatient episodes. On univariate analysis, mortality was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (72/435 [16·6%] vs 20/207 [9·7%], p=0·044) and in group 3 (503/5880 [8·6%], p<0·001), but not in group 2 compared with group 3 (p=0·4). A multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders confirmed the mortality differences between groups 1 and 3 (OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31). Multistage algorithms performed better than did standalone assays. INTERPRETATION: We noted no increase in mortality when toxigenic C difficile alone was present. Toxin (cytotoxin assay) positivity correlated with clinical outcome, and so this reference method best defines true cases of C difficile infection. A new diagnostic category of potential C difficile excretor (cytotoxigenic culture positive but cytotoxin assay negative) could be used to characterise patients with diarrhoea that is probably not due to C difficile infection, but who can cause cross-infection.

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 · 10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70200-7

Cites

38 of 38 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 38 references

Cited by

See all 435

Metadata

Authors
Planche, T. D., Davies, K. A., Coen, P. G., Finney, J. M., Monahan, I. M., Morris, K. A., O'Connor, L., Oakley, S. J., Pope, C. F., Wren, M. W., Shetty, N. P., Crook, D. W., & Wilcox, M. H.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
13
Issue
11
Pages
936-945
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2155106081
Cited by
435
References
38
FWCI
35.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70200-7
The paper
Planche, T. D., Davies, K. A., Coen, P. G., Finney, J. M., Monahan, I. M., Morris, K. A., O'Connor, L., Oakley, S. J., Pope, C. F., Wren, M. W., Shetty, N. P., Crook, D. W., & Wilcox, M. H. (2013). Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70200-7

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.