ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2005
Comparison of the sodium hydroxide specimen processing method with the C18-carboxypropylbetaine specimen processing method using independent specimens with auramine smear, the MB/BacT liquid culture system, and the COBAS AMPLICOR MTB test.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chinese Expert Consensus on the Nucleic Acid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Is real-time PCR better than conventional PCR for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex detection in clinical samples?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Laboratory diagnosis of tuberculosis in resource-poor countries: challenges and opportunities.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A study was performed to diagnose tuberculosis by smear, culture, and nucleic acid amplification. The study was comprised of two independent arms. Each arm used a different specimen processing method; in one arm, all specimens were processed with N-acetyl-l-cysteine-sodium hydroxide, and in the other arm, all specimens were processed with C(18)-carboxypropylbetaine and lytic enzymes. In each arm, all processed sediments were split for analysis by auramine smear, by culture using the MB/BacT liquid culture system and solid media, and by nucleic acid amplification using the COBAS AMPLICOR MTB test. In the N-acetyl-l-cysteine-sodium hydroxide arm, 1,468 specimens were analyzed: 65 were smear positive; 88 and 42 were culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacteria, respectively; and 103 were PCR positive. Relative to cultures positive for M. tuberculosis, the sensitivity and specificity of the smear were 68.2% and 99.6%, respectively, and those of PCR were 75.0% and 97.3%, respectively. In the C(18)-carboxypropylbetaine study arm, 1,423 specimens were analyzed: 44 were smear positive; 82 and 31 were culture positive for M. tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacteria, respectively; and 91 were PCR positive. The sensitivity and specificity of the smear were 48.8% and 99.7%, respectively, and those of PCR were 78.0% and 98.0%, respectively. When the two arms were compared, C(18)-carboxypropylbetaine specimen processing significantly increased the number of smear-negative and culture-positive specimens and significantly increased the PCR sensitivity among this same group of specimens while at the same time significantly reducing the inhibition rate.
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.