Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Research Article

Comparison of the VIDAS Clostridium difficile toxin A immunoassay with C. difficile culture and cytotoxin and latex tests.

C J Shanholtzer, K E Willard, J J Holter, M M Olson, D N Gerding, L R Peterson
C J Shanholtzer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K E Willard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J J Holter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M M Olson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D N Gerding
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L R Peterson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The VIDAS Clostridium difficile toxin A immunoassay (CDA) is a new, automated, enzyme-linked fluorescent-antibody assay for detection of C. difficile toxin A antigen in stool specimens. Simultaneous, parallel testing was performed by using the VIDAS CDA, the Culturette brand CDT latex test for C. difficile antigens, and conventional laboratory cell culture tests for C. difficile, cytotoxicity and C. difficile culture. One hundred ninety-four consecutive fresh soft or liquid stool samples submitted for C. difficile testing between July and September 1990 were evaluated. Of the 194 samples tested, 19 (10%) were from 16 patients who met our case definition for C. difficile-associated disease. The in vitro tests were evaluated in relation to two forms of a clinical case definition. In one form, a positive culture for toxin-producing C. difficile or a positive cytotoxin result obtained directly from the stool specimen was required as laboratory evidence of C. difficile. In the other, a positive result of any of the four laboratory tests was accepted for the laboratory portion of the case definition. No significant difference between the sensitivity of the VIDAS CDA and that of the Culturette brand CDT latex test was found (48 to 58% sensitivity for the CDT latex test and 52 to 63% sensitivity for the VIDAS CDA compared with 93 to 100% sensitivity for culture and 70 to 100% sensitivity for cytotoxin testing). The performance of the VIDAS CDA, however, was hampered by a high percentage of tests (19%) which gave an uninterpretable result.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of the VIDAS Clostridium difficile toxin A immunoassay with C. difficile culture and cytotoxin and latex tests.
C J Shanholtzer, K E Willard, J J Holter, M M Olson, D N Gerding, L R Peterson
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 1992, 30 (7) 1837-1840; DOI:

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of the VIDAS Clostridium difficile toxin A immunoassay with C. difficile culture and cytotoxin and latex tests.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of the VIDAS Clostridium difficile toxin A immunoassay with C. difficile culture and cytotoxin and latex tests.
C J Shanholtzer, K E Willard, J J Holter, M M Olson, D N Gerding, L R Peterson
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 1992, 30 (7) 1837-1840; DOI:
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X