Comparative Value of Colonic Biopsy and Intraluminal Fluid Culture for Diagnosis of Bacterial Acute Colitis in Immunocompetent Patients
Abstract
We compared the yield of intraluminal fluid culture to that of biopsy specimens obtained during colonoscopy for the diagnosis of bacterial colitis in 93 immunocompetent patients with a recent episode of diarrhea and macroscopic lesions of colitis. Stool culture findings were also available for 68 patients. At least one bacterial pathogen was isolated from the biopsy specimen, intraluminal fluid, or stool from 48 patients (51.6%). Salmonella species, Clostridium difficile, Klebsiella oxytoca, Shigella species, and Campylobacter species were recovered from 16 (17.2%), 15 (16.1%), 8 (8.6%), 7 (7.5%), and 4 (4.3%) of the patients, respectively. One Shigella species and one K. oxytoca strain were isolated from biopsy specimens but not from intraluminal fluid, and intraluminal fluid was the only positive specimen in 12 cases (yielding 1 Salmonella species, 2 Shigella species, 2 K. oxytoca, and 7 C. difficile isolates). In nine cases out of 10, toxin B was detected only in intraluminal fluid. A correlation of 91.2% was observed between stool and intraluminal fluid cultures for Salmonella, Shigella, and Campylobacter species isolations. Culture of biopsy specimens adds little to the diagnosis of infectious colitis, and stools and intraluminal fluids appear to have comparable value.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bacterial culture of intestinal juice aspirated during endoscopy and stool culture had a 91.2% concordance rate.
“bacterial culture of intestinal juice aspirated during endoscopy and stool culture had a 91.2% concordance rate”
From Guideline for the Antibiotic Use in Acute Gastroenteritis (2019) · cites this paper as [54]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 39
- Authors
- Barbut, F., Beaugerie, L., Delas, N., Fossati‐Marchal, S., Aygalenq, P., Petit, J., & the Infectious Colitis Study Group
- Affiliations
- Hôpital Saint-Antoine (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Barbut, Frédéric
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-08
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 356-360
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W1966584384
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
- Keywords
- infectious colitis, colonoscopic biopsy, stool culture, diagnostic yield, Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, Clostridium difficile, Klebsiella oxytoca, toxin B, immunocompetent patient, diarrhea
- MeSH terms
- Acute Disease, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bacterial Infections, Biopsy, Body Fluids, Colitis, Colon, Colonoscopy, Diarrhea, Female, Humans, Immunocompetence, Klebsiella, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Salmonella, Shigella flexneri, Shigella sonnei, Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridioides difficile, Campylobacter coli
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