ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2005
Interpretive criteria for use of AccuProbe for identification of Mycobacterium avium complex directly from 7H9 broth cultures.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving Approaches to Bacterial Identification: A Review of Classical and Modern Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Understanding nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease: it's been a long time coming.F1000Research · 2016Review
- Biochip system for rapid and accurate identification of mycobacterial species from isolates and sputum.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2010Article
- Comparison of three methods for rapid identification of mycobacterial clinical isolates to the species level.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid identification of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) is possible by use of AccuProbe (Gen-Probe, San Diego, Calif.). To evaluate the reliability of the MAC AccuProbe for testing 7H9 cultures inoculated with broth from MGIT cultures positive for acid-fast bacilli or growth on a solid medium, we compared probe results to results obtained by sequencing a portion of the 16S rRNA gene. Isolates were sequenced if the MAC probe result was <100,000 relative light units (RLU) or if it was > or =100,000 RLU and the colony morphology was not classic or there were two colony types. For the 1,389 cultures tested in phase 1, conducted to evaluate cutoff values for the MAC probe in testing of 7H9 cultures inoculated with broth from MGIT cultures, the sensitivity and specificity of the MAC AccuProbe were 97.7% and 88.8%, respectively, according to the manufacturer's interpretive criteria (> or =30,000 RLU is positive). If the cutoff for a positive result were 80,000 RLU, the specificity would be 100% and the sensitivity 92.3%. Of the 344 isolates in phase 2, which was conducted to confirm the 80,000-RLU cutoff for a positive result and therefore included only isolates with a MAC probe result of < or =100,000 RLU, 13 of 16 with results of > or =30,000 but <80,000 RLU were identified as mycobacteria other than MAC, including five Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex isolates. These data support the use of 80,000 RLU as the cutoff for a positive result in testing of 7H9 broth cultures with the MAC AccuProbe.
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.