ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Clinical predictors of enzyme immunoassay accuracy in Clostridioides difficile infection: the impact of immune status and infection predisposing factors.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea, with increasing prevalence in China and the Asia-Pacific region. Despite its limited sensitivity, the enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is widely used for CDI diagnosis in clinical practice due to its cost-effectiveness and rapid results. However, false-negative results can lead to underdiagnosis and poor patient outcomes. Limited research has examined the clinical characteristics of EIA false negative (FN) cases in the Chinese healthcare setting.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 673 stool samples from suspected patients with CDI. Patients were classified as false-negative (FN; GDH-positive/EIA-negative, cytotoxicity culture-positive) or true positive (P; GDH-positive/EIA-positive, cytotoxicity culture-positive). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of FN results and their association with clinical outcomes.
resultsIn the multivariable analysis, immunocompromised status was the strongest factor associated with a lower likelihood of a false-negative result (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for FN: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.06–0.24). Patients in the FN group presented with a significantly milder degree of clinical severity at diagnosis, as measured by the Zar CDI severity score. Critically, after adjusting for baseline disease severity, an FN result was independently associated with a 2.83-fold increased risk of developing shock (aOR = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.23–6.52).
conclusionHost immune status is a key factor associated with EIA accuracy, while the influence of other traditional risk factors like PPI use appears to be confounded. False-negative EIA results are not benign; they are independently associated with a substantially higher risk of shock, suggesting that reliance on EIA alone in high-risk patients may carry significant prognostic implications. These findings highlight the limitations of EIA in immunocompetent patients with milder symptoms and underscore the critical need for adjunctive testing to improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.