ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2008
Comparative evaluation of FASTPlaque assay with PCR and other conventional in vitro diagnostic methods for the early detection of pulmonary tuberculosis.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phage Amplification Assay for Detection of Mycobacterial Infection: A Review.Microorganisms · 2021Review
- Prevalence of suspected tuberculosis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia according to conventional and molecular methods.Journal of family & community medicine · 2014Article
- Phage-based platforms for the clinical detection of human bacterial pathogens.Bacteriophage · 2012Article
- Recovery of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from sputum treated with cetyl pyridinium chloride.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
- Update on cutaneous tuberculosis.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaReview
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
Rapid and accurate diagnosis of symptomatic patients of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is highly desirable to minimize the spread of the disease in the society. We, therefore, compared the usefulness of various conventional diagnostic methods, the in-house polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and the FASTPlaque assay in this study. Laboratory data of 150 patients with clinical diagnosis of pulmonary TB and 50 controls were included in this study. The sputa from all these 200 individuals were subjected to acid-fast staining, culture on Lowenstein-Jensen (L-J) slants, automated BACTEC-MGIT-960 culture methods, and a mycobacteriophage assay. A mycobacterium genus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis species-specific PCRs were also done and samples positive on both PCRs were considered as standard for comparison. Of the 5 in vitro diagnostic tests, PCR method was found to be the most rapid, sensitive, and specific, detecting all the 150 cases of pulmonary TB without any false-positive and negative result. In comparison with PCR the sensitivity of MGIT-960 was 90%, followed by FASTPlaque assay (76.7%), L-J culture method (73.3%), and microscopy (60%). The mean detection time for smear-positive and smear-negative samples was 12.5 and 14 days in MGIT-960 and 18 and 25 days for L-J method, respectively. The FASTPlaque failed to detect mycobacteria from the paucibacillary samples. The contamination rates for MGIT-960, L-J, and FASTPlaque assays were 4, 8 and 10%, respectively. The best correlation with mycobacterial load in the specimen was observed in BACTEC-MGIT-960 showing 66.6% detection rate in paucibacillary, 83.3% in 1+ samples, and 100% in 2+ and 3+ samples. Out of the 150 patients, 140 (93.3%) could be diagnosed by one or more nonmolecular methods. Therefore, it could be concluded that combination of three or more in vitro diagnostic methods will have acceptable detection level.
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.