↓ Skip to main content

Clinical and economic impact of the introduction of a nucleic acid amplification assay for Clostridium difficile

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Clinical and economic impact of the introduction of a nucleic acid amplification assay for Clostridium difficile
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12941-017-0252-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaret M. Guinta, Kristen Bunnell, Amanda Harrington, Susan Bleasdale, Larry Danziger, Eric Wenzler

Abstract

The clinical outcomes and cost implications of a diagnostic shift from an EIA- to PCR-based assay for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) have not been completely described in the literature. The impact of the PCR-based assay on the incidence and duration of CDI therapy was compared to the EIA assay for patients with a negative CDI diagnostic result. Secondary clinical and economic outcomes were also evaluated. Independent predictors of receipt of antibiotic therapy were assessed via logistic regression. 141 EIA and 140 PCR patients were included. Significantly more patients were started or continued on anti-CDI antibiotic therapy after a known negative assay result in the EIA group (26 patients vs. 8 patients, P = 0.002). Duration of antibiotic therapy after a known negative result was significantly shorter in the PCR group (1 vs. 4 days, P = 0.029) and a 23% reduction in the number of tests obtained per patient was observed (1.41 ± 0.86 vs. 1.82 ± 1.35, P = 0.007). The over fourfold difference in per-test cost of the EIA assay ($8.33 vs. $42.86, P < 0.0001) was offset by the overall medication costs required for the increased treatment in the EIA group ($546.60 vs. $188.96, P = 0.191). Utilization of the EIA-based CDI assay was associated with increased odds of CDI treatment after a negative test (aOR 4.71, 95% CI 1.93-11.46, P = 0.001). The transition from an EIA to PCR-based assay for diagnosing CDI resulted in a significant decrease in the number of patients treated and the duration of treatment in response to a negative test result. This significant decrease in treatment resulted in decreased costs offsetting the utilization of a more expensive molecular test for patients with a negative CDI diagnostic result.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Unspecified 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 13%
Psychology 1 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,133,662
of 25,173,778 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#81
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,451
of 451,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,173,778 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 451,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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