Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11427597›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001

Multicenter evaluation of a pathogenic mycobacterium screening probe.

S Emler, K Feldmann, V Giacuzzo, P L Hewitt, P E Klapper, P H Lagrange, E W Wilkins, K K Young, J L Herrmann

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Molecular diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis by automated extraction and real-time PCR on non-decontaminated pulmonary specimens.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2007
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

S EmlerHopital Cantonal Universitaire de Geneve, Geneva, Switzerland.
K Feldmann
V Giacuzzo
P L Hewitt
P E Klapper
P H Lagrange
E W Wilkins
K K Young
J L Herrmann
Hôpital Saint-Louis · FRNorth Manchester General Hospital · GBAsklepios Fachkliniken München-Gauting · DEHôpital Beau-Séjour · CHMaterials Systems (United States) · USRoche (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of nucleic acid amplification assays into the clinical laboratory has reduced the time needed to diagnose diseases caused by members of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC). However, several mycobacterial species other than those of the MTBC are known to cause disease, especially in immunocompromised individuals. A screening assay has been developed for the detection of the major pathogenic mycobacterial species. The assay utilizes pan-genus primers to amplify mycobacterial DNA and a screening probe (KY493) that detects all major pathogenic mycobacteria. A multicenter European study was conducted to assess the performance of the screening probe in the clinical laboratory. The screening probe was evaluated against individual probes specific for M. tuberculosis, M. avium, and M. intracellulare, a genus-specific probe with broader species coverage, and culture. The screening probe had a sensitivity equivalent to that of the species-specific probes; all specimens positive with any of the species-specific probes were also positive with the screening probes. Compared to culture, the sensitivity of the screening probe was 89% (154 of 173) for all culture-positive specimens tested. This value was 89.6% for the genus-specific probe. The screening probe was more specific than the genus-specific probe. Specificity was 93.9% (661 of 704) compared to culture results alone. The comparable specificity value for the genus-specific probe was 84.8%. When clinical data were taken into consideration, the sensitivity of the screening assay was similar to that of culture (81% versus 76.2%) but the positive predictive value of the test was lower (76.2% versus 100% for culture). However, the screening probe was more sensitive than smear and may be a useful tool in the rapid diagnosis of mycobacterial disease.

Indexed as

DNA ProbesMass ScreeningDNA, BacterialHumansMycobacteriumMycobacterium InfectionsPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificitySpecies SpecificityDNA, BacterialDNA Probes

Identifiers

PMID11427597
PMCPMC88213
OpenAlexW2107929539

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.