Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(60)
A Clostridium difficile toxin assay returned positive.
Clostridium difficile toxin assay were positive in 268 (12.1%) but only 133 were assigned the ICD-9 code [Figure 1].
All patients in 2007 with positive Clostridium difficile toxin assay (CDTA) or with discharge summaries containing the ICD-9 code of 008.45 for CDI were retrospectively reviewed.
Among those who had a positive toxin assay, 62 (23%) had their positive stool samples collected within 48 hours of admission.
Previous studies in the United States demonstrated good correlation between toxin assay results and ICD-9 codes, with sensitivity and specificity of ICD-9 codes reported at 71 78% and >99% respectively compared to microbiologic data [3] [5].
Recently, many L. pneumophila effector proteins have been identified using several techniques including the Cya (B. pertussis adenylate cyclase toxin) assay system, yeast expression system and β-lactamase reporter system [9] [16].
There were no positive toxin assay results for C. difficile.
The breakdown of admissions, according to toxin assay and ICD-9 status, was as follows: 506 had both a positive toxin assay and received the ICD-9 code (concordant; CDTA+/ICD9+), 156 had a positive toxin assay but no ICD-9 code (CDTA+/ICD9–), and 239 received the ICD-9 code but did not have a positive toxin assay (CDTA /ICD9+).
The toxin assay we used possesses an excellent specificity, but an 80% sensitivity [ 27].
The correlation between toxin assay results and ICD-9 codes was good (κ = 0.72, p<0.01).
These 24 were asked to identify reasons for choosing SMAC over Shiga toxin assay.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com