ArticlePloS one2009
A pilot study of short-duration sputum pretreatment procedures for optimizing smear microscopy for tuberculosis.
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does bleach processing increase the accuracy of sputum smear microscopy for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2010Pooled it
- Performance of Bleach Method Sputum Smear Microscopy for the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis in a Highly Endemic District in Lima, Peru.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Drug resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis identified through PCR-RFLP from patients of Central Punjab, Pakistan.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology · 2016Article
- Tuberculosis diagnostics: Challenges and opportunities.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2012Article
- Evaluation of bleach-sedimentation for sterilising and concentrating Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum specimens.BMC infectious diseases · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirect sputum smear microscopy for tuberculosis (TB) lacks sensitivity for the detection of acid fast bacilli. Sputum pretreatment procedures may enhance sensitivity. We did a pilot study to compare the diagnostic accuracy and incremental yield of two short-duration (<1 hour) sputum pretreatment procedures to optimize direct smears among patients with suspected TB at a referral hospital in India. METHODOLOGY/
findingsBlinded laboratory comparison of bleach and universal sediment processing (USP) pretreated centrifuged auramine smears to direct Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) and direct auramine smears and to solid (Loweinstein-Jensen (LJ)) and liquid (BACTEC 460) culture. 178 pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB suspects were prospectively recruited during a one year period. Thirty six (20.2%) were positive by either solid or liquid culture. Direct ZN smear detected 22 of 36 cases and direct auramine smears detected 26 of 36 cases. Bleach and USP centrifugation detected 24 cases each, providing no incremental yield beyond direct smears. When compared to combined culture, pretreated smears were not more sensitive than direct smears (66.6% vs 61.1 (ZN) or 72.2 (auramine)), and were not more specific (92.3% vs 93.0 (ZN) or 97.2 (auramine). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Short duration sputum pretreatment with bleach and USP centrifugation did not increase yield as compared to direct sputum smears. Further work is needed to confirm this in a larger study and also determine if longer duration pre-treatment might be effective in optimizing smear microscopy for TB.
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.