Search

To conduct a survey of the methods used in clinical microbiology laboratories in Europe to diagnose infection with Clostridium difficile. A questionnaire was devised and sent to a co-ordinating member of the Study Group in each of eight European countries. This co-ordinator was in charge of forwarding the questionnaire to hospital laboratories arbitrarily selected. The number of laboratories in each country was determined on the basis of one laboratory for 10 000 beds of hospitalization. This questionnaire covered different aspects pertaining to Clostridium difficile associated to diarrhea (CDAD) diagnosis such as circumstances of request, criteria used for undertaking C. difficile investigations, methods used for the diagnosis, etc. A total of 212 questionnaires were completed and submitted for analysis: 87.7% of laboratories reported routinely performing C. difficile diagnostic tests. Methods used included toxin detection (93%), culture (55%), and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) detection (5.9%). Among the laboratories detecting toxins, different enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and cytotoxicity assays were used in 79% and 17.3% of cases, respectively. Among the different strategies reported, 4.8% were considered suboptimal for the diagnosis of C. difficile infections, but marked discrepancies could be observed between countries. The overall incidence (median) of CDAD was estimated at 1.1 for 1000 patient admissions. The results of this study suggest marked discrepancies between laboratories and also between countries regarding the criteria by which C. difficile is investigated for, and the methods and the strategies that are used for the diagnosis of C. difficile. These discrepancies could be explained by the lack of clear guidelines for C. difficile diagnosis in each country, and by the importance that physicians attach to C. difficile. Precise guidelines for C. difficile diagnosis would be the first step to make possible accurate comparison of the incidence and the epidemiology of CDAD from one hospital to another or from one country to another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To conduct a survey of the methods used in clinical microbiology laboratories in Europe to diagnose infection with Clostridium difficile., Methods: A questionnaire was devised and sent to a co-ordinating member of the Study Group in each of eight European countries. This co-ordinator was in charge of forwarding the questionnaire to hospital laboratories arbitrarily selected. The number of laboratories in each country was determined on the basis of one laboratory for 10,000 beds of hospitalization. This questionnaire covered different aspects pertaining to Clostridium difficile associated to diarrhea (CDAD) diagnosis such as circumstances of request, criteria used for undertaking C. difficile investigations, methods used for the diagnosis, etc., Results: A total of 212 questionnaires were completed and submitted for analysis: 87.7% of laboratories reported routinely performing C. difficile diagnostic tests. Methods used included toxin detection (93%), culture (55%), and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) detection (5.9%). Among the laboratories detecting toxins, different enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and cytotoxicity assays were used in 79% and 17.3% of cases, respectively. Among the different strategies reported, 4.8% were considered suboptimal for the diagnosis of C. difficile infections, but marked discrepancies could be observed between countries. The overall incidence (median) of CDAD was estimated at 1.1 for 1,000 patient admissions., Conclusion: The results of this study suggest marked discrepancies between laboratories and also between countries regarding the criteria by which C. difficile is investigated for, and the methods and the strategies that are used for the diagnosis of C. difficile. These discrepancies could be explained by the lack of clear guidelines for C. difficile diagnosis in each country, and by the importance that physicians attach to C. difficile. Precise guidelines for C. difficile diagnosis would be the first step to make possible accurate comparison of the incidence and the epidemiology of CDAD from one hospital to another or from one country to another.

The retrospective study based on pregnancy samples is the most commonly used method for studying time to pregnancy. Using a simple Monte Carlo simulation, this note focuses on a particular selection bias problem associated with this design: even if each woman's fecundity decreases with age, estimation of the effect of age may show the opposite trend. We recommend exercising increased caution in interpreting findings from pregnancy-based time-to-pregnancy studies.

The prevalence and antibiotic sensitivity patterns of bacteria collected consecutively from medical and surgical intensive care units (ICUs) and from hematology/oncology units in nine hospitals in Denmark were determined and compared to data collected simultaneously in 12 other European countries. Bacterial isolates from 794 Danish patients were tested and compared to 8,625 isolates from European patients. The minimal inhibitory concentrations of eight different antibiotics were determined using a microdilution plate. Similar to findings in European countries, the most common source of bacterial isolates in Danish units was the respiratory tract (49%), followed by blood (18%), urinary tract (14%) and surgical wounds (10%). Staphylococcus aureus was the most prevalent respiratory organism in Danish units, whereas Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa dominated in other countries. In blood, Escherichia coli was most prevalent in Denmark while coagulase-negative staphylococci were predominant in other countries. Urinary tract isolates were dominated by Escherichia coli in both Denmark and the other countries, but Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were more frequently isolated in the other countries. Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent wound isolate in Denmark, while Enterobacteriaceae other than Escherichia coli dominated in other European countries. Thus, in Denmark Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella spp. (from ICUs) or Enterococcus spp. and Klebsiella spp. (from hematology/oncology units), are the most prominent pathogens in these units today. Indicator organisms of antibiotic consumption (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus) were more frequent in other European countries than Denmark. In general the Danish isolates were more sensitive to antibiotics than the European isolates.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)