Comparative Study of <i>Clostridium difficile</i> Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea

<div>The area under the ROC curve of the toxigenic culture, the GeneXpert <i>C. difficile</i> PCR assay, and the VIDAS enzyme immunoassay (79 specimens). The area under the GeneXpert <i>C. difficile</i> PCR assay and the VIDAS enzyme immunoassay curves were 0.984 and 0.813, respectively. <svg height="10.1524pt" id="M9" style="vertical-align:-0.04990005pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -10.1025 6.17869 10.1524" width="6.17869pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,0,-5.741)"><path d="M486 158C486 177 478 202 466 220C413 228 386 236 336 262C386 288 413 297 466 304C478 323 486 347 485 366C470 376 444 381 422 380C389 338 368 319 321 288C323 345 329 372 349 422C339 442 322 461 305 470C289 461 271 442 262 422C281 372 287 345 290 288C243 319 222 338 189 380C167 381 142 376 125 366C125 347 133 322 145 304C198 296 225 288 275 262C225 236 198 227 145 220C133 201 125 177 126 158C141 148 167 143 189 144C222 186 243 205 290 236C288 179 282 152 262 102C272 82 289 63 306 54C322 63 340 82 350 102C330 152 324 179 321 236C368 205 390 186 422 144C444 143 470 148 486 158Z"></path></g></svg>Significantly different as compared with the toxigenic culture method <span class="nowrap"><svg height="11.5564pt" id="M10" style="vertical-align:-2.26807pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -9.28833 53.8691 11.5564" width="53.8691pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M300 -147C201 -63 143 98 143 270S200 602 300 686L282 710C136 610 70 450 70 271V270C70 89 136 -72 282 -170L300 -147Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,4.498,0)"><path d="M600 480C600 590 528 650 384 650H143L137 622C222 614 225 607 210 531L130 127C113 41 106 36 23 28L17 0H294L300 28C204 36 195 42 212 127L243 284L314 263C327 263 339 263 352 264C465 271 600 337 600 480ZM508 481C508 351 402 304 329 304C289 304 265 311 250 317L295 559C302 594 310 606 323 611C335 616 350 619 367 619C455 619 508 573 508 481Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,16.156,0)"><path d="M512 -3V55L134 254V256L512 456V514L75 281V230L512 -3Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,27.419,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,33.659,0)"><path d="M113 -12C146 -12 170 11 170 46C170 78 146 103 114 103S58 78 58 46C58 11 82 -12 113 -12Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,36.623,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,42.863,0)"><path d="M153 550H386L412 615L406 623H120L82 318C104 327 142 338 184 338C294 338 347 275 347 187C347 112 305 39 221 39C160 39 119 71 97 89C88 97 80 96 71 90C59 80 50 67 49 57C48 45 52 36 66 23C80 9 123 -12 169 -12C221 -11 288 15 342 59C403 109 431 165 431 225C431 308 366 395 238 395C212 395 165 379 127 364L153 550Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,49.103,0)"><path d="M275 270C275 450 212 609 64 710L45 686C145 604 203 442 203 270S147 -63 45 -147L64 -170C213 -68 275 89 275 270Z"></path></g></svg>.</span></div>

Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology

fig1

Figure 1

Figure 1: Comparative Study of <i>Clostridium difficile</i> Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea 

Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology

Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea

Figure 1