↓ Skip to main content

Utilizing BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel to Detect Stool Pathogens from Rectal Swabs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Clinical Pathology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Utilizing BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel to Detect Stool Pathogens from Rectal Swabs
Published in
BMC Clinical Pathology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12907-017-0043-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara DeBurger, Sarah Hanna, Eleanor A. Powell, Cindi Ventrola, Joel E. Mortensen

Abstract

The BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel (BDM-EBP) is designed and FDA-cleared to detect Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and Shiga toxin genes stx1/2 from stool samples. However, rectal swabs, which are not FDA-cleared for clinical testing with the BDM-EBP, are common specimens received from pediatric patients for enteric pathogen testing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of the BDM-EBP to detect stool pathogens from rectal swabs. Routine cultures, Shiga toxin testing, and molecular testing with BDM-EBP were performed on 272 sequential rectal swabs collected from August 2015 to December 2015. Discrepant test results were resolved using Verigene® Enteric Pathogens Nucleic Acid Test (EP). 36 challenge samples (13 Salmonella spp., 3 Shigella spp., 10 Campylobacter spp., and 10 Shiga toxin positive Escherichia coli) were tested using reference strains (American Type Culture Collection) and previous patient isolates diluted to10(3)-10(4) cfu/ml in saline then added to Sample Buffer Tube (SBT) with negative stool matrix delivered via a swab. Limit of detection testing was performed by serial 10 fold dilutions in saline then added to SBT with negative stool matrix provided via a swab. A total of 272 rectal swab specimens were evaluated and 89 were positive by culture and/or MAX EBP. All discrepant results were BDM-EBP positive and culture negative. 21 of 31 (68%) of the apparent false positive BDM-EBP discrepant results resolved as positive with Nanosphere's Verigene® EP. After resolution of the discordant results, the Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) are as follows for each target: Salmonella (n = 4) 100%, PPA and 100%, NPA; Shigella (n = 79) 100%, PPA and 95.3%, NPA; Campylobacter (n = 4) 100%, PPA and 99.6%, NPA; and Shiga toxin producing organisms (n = 2) 100%, PPA and 100%, NPA. 8.8% of the patient samples did not initially yield a result on the BDM-System. Upon repeat, half of the problematic samples resolved, and 4.4% of the total specimen tested did not yield a result. All organisms in the challenge samples were detected. Limits of detection for BDM-EBP testing of rectal swabs were as follows (in cfu/ml in SBT): Salmonella-1.44 × 10(2); Shigella-5.10 × 10(0); Campylobacter-1.51 × 10(1); and Shiga Toxin-1.13 ×10(3). Rectal swabs are acceptable samples for detecting Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and Shiga toxin using BDM-EBP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 12 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 12 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,453,139
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Clinical Pathology
#57
of 117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,475
of 309,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Clinical Pathology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 117 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them