English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We compared 3 rapid assays for Clostridium difficile with a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). Of 600 stool samples, 46 were positive for toxigenic C difficile. Both rapid common antigen assays were highly sensitive (91.3%-100%) and, therefore, were appropriate screening tests. The rapid toxin assay had poor sensitivity (61%) but excellent specificity (99.3%). Testing stools for glutamate dehydrogenase (step 1) and those positive with a rapid toxin assay (step 2) would correctly classify 81% of submitted specimens within 2 hours, including during periods of limited staffing (evenings, nights, and weekends). CCNA could then be used as a third step to test rapid toxin-negative samples, thereby providing a final result for the remaining 19% of samples by 48 to 72 hours. The use of rapid assays as outlined could enhance timely diagnosis of C difficile.

american journal of clinical pathology

Comparison of Two Rapid Assays for<i>Clostridium difficile</i>Common Antigen and a<i>C difficile</i>Toxin A/B Assay With the Cell Culture Neutralization Assay: Table 1

Comparison of Two Rapid Assays forClostridium difficileCommon Antigen and aC difficileToxin A/B Assay With the Cell Culture Neutralization Assay: Table 1