ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2004
Evaluation of a modified gen-probe amplified direct test for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex organisms in cerebrospinal fluid.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biphasic Effects of Blue Light Irradiation on Different Drug-Resistant Bacterium and Exploration of Its Mechanism.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- The PCR-Based Diagnosis of Central Nervous System Tuberculosis: Up to Date.Tuberculosis research and treatment · 2012Article
- Impact of a chemistry-based DNA extraction method on performance of a commercial amplification assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
- Central nervous system tuberculosis: pathogenesis and clinical aspects.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2008Review
- 16S rRNA gene sequencing and the routine clinical microbiology laboratory: a perfect marriage?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2006Article
- Occurrence of overlooked zoonotic tuberculosis: detection of Mycobacterium bovis in human cerebrospinal fluid.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory evidence for tuberculous meningitis is difficult to acquire due to the low numbers of organisms present in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and the presence of nucleic acid amplification inhibitors. The Amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test (MTD) is sensitive and specific for the direct detection of M. tuberculosis complex in respiratory samples but has not been approved for CSF. We evaluated a modified version of the current MTD, optimized for use with CSF samples. Samples were prepared by spiking CSF with various numbers of M. tuberculosis complex organisms. The modified MTD performance was compared with results obtained using a purified RNA sample extracted using the Qiagen RNeasy Protect Bacteria Mini Kit. By use of CSF artificially spiked with M. tuberculosis complex, the sensitivity of the modified MTD was 100% (six of six) for CSF samples containing approximately 600 CFU/ml, 78% (seven of nine) for approximately 60 CFU/ml, 50% (three of six) for 6 CFU/ml, and 17% (one of six) for samples with <1 CFU/ml. The specificity of the modified MTD method was 100% (22 of 22). The sensitivity of the Qiagen MTD method was 100% for CSF samples containing approximately 600 CFU/ml (six of six) and approximately 60 CFU/ml (nine of nine), 50% for samples with approximately 6 CFU/ml (three of six), and 50% for samples with <1 CFU/ml (three of six). The specificity of the Qiagen MTD method was 86% (19 of 22). With the Qiagen MTD method, however, initial results were equivocal for 14 of the 27 (52%) positive samples, requiring repeat analysis, whereas with the modified MTD, only 1 of 27 (4%) was equivocal. The modified MTD for CSF samples was less time-consuming and less expensive and resulted in considerably fewer equivocal results than the Qiagen MTD method did.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.