Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11283077›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001

Evaluation of mycobacteria growth indicator tube for direct and indirect drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from respiratory specimens in a Siberian prison hospital.

V Goloubeva, M Lecocq, P Lassowsky, F Matthys, F Portaels, I Bastian

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

V GoloubevaBacteriology Laboratory, Colony 33, Mariinsk, Siberia.
M Lecocq
P Lassowsky
F Matthys
F Portaels
I Bastian

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The manual Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) method was evaluated for performing direct and indirect drug susceptibility testing (DST) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for isoniazid and rifampin on 101 strongly smear-positive sputum specimens in a Siberian prison hospital. Using the indirect method of proportion (MOP) as the "gold standard," the accuracies of isoniazid and rifampin susceptibility testing by the direct MGIT system were 97.0 and 94.1%, respectively. The accuracy of the indirect MGIT system was 98.0% for both drugs. The turnaround times from specimen processing to reporting of the DST results ranged between 4 and 23 (mean, 9.2) days by the direct MGIT method, 9 and 30 (mean, 15.3) days by the indirect MGIT method, and 26 and 101 (mean, 59.6) days by the indirect MOP. MGIT appears to be a reliable, rapid, and convenient method for performing direct and indirect DSTs in low-resource settings, but further studies are required to refine the direct DST protocol. Cost is the only factor prohibiting widespread implementation of MGIT.

Indexed as

Antitubercular AgentsDrug Resistance, MicrobialDrug Resistance, MultipleHospitals, StateHumansIsoniazidMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMycobacterium tuberculosisPrisonsRifampinSensitivity and SpecificitySiberiaSputumTuberculosis, PulmonaryAntitubercular AgentsIsoniazidRifampin

Identifiers

PMID11283077
PMCPMC87960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.