Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19709423›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2009

Comparison of rapid tests for detection of rifampicin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Kampala, Uganda.

Sam Ogwang, Benon B Asiimwe, Hamidou Traore, Francis Mumbowa, Alphonse Okwera, Kathleen D Eisenach, Susan Kayes, Edward C Jones-López, Ruth McNerney, William Worodria and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Structural Basis ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Sam OgwangDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda. ogwangsam@yahoo.com
Benon B Asiimwe
Hamidou Traore
Francis Mumbowa
Alphonse Okwera
Kathleen D Eisenach
Susan Kayes
Edward C Jones-López
Ruth McNerney
William Worodria
Irene Ayakaka
Roy D Mugerwa
Peter G Smith
Jerrold Ellner
Moses L Joloba
MUJHU Research Collaboration · UGMakerere University · UGLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBJoint Clinical Research Centre · UGUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · US

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700837PHS HHS N0I-A195383Wellcome Trust 063410/ABC/00/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug resistant tuberculosis (TB) is a growing concern worldwide. Rapid detection of resistance expedites appropriate intervention to control the disease. Several technologies have recently been reported to detect rifampicin resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis directly in sputum samples. These include phenotypic culture based methods, tests for gene mutations and tests based on bacteriophage replication. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility of implementing technology for rapid detection of rifampicin resistance in a high disease burden setting in Africa.

methodsSputum specimens from re-treatment TB patients presenting to the Mulago Hospital National TB Treatment Centre in Kampala, Uganda, were examined by conventional methods and simultaneously used in one of the four direct susceptibility tests, namely direct BACTEC 460, Etest, "in-house" phage test, and INNO- Rif.TB. The reference method was the BACTEC 460 indirect culture drug susceptibility testing. Test performance, cost and turn around times were assessed.

resultsIn comparison with indirect BACTEC 460, the respective sensitivities and specificities for detecting rifampicin resistance were 100% and 100% for direct BACTEC and the Etest, 94% and 95% for the phage test, and 87% and 87% for the Inno-LiPA assay. Turn around times ranged from an average of 3 days for the INNO-LiPA and phage tests, 8 days for the direct BACTEC 460 and 20 days for the Etest. All methods were faster than the indirect BACTEC 460 which had a mean turn around time of 24 days. The cost per test, including labour ranged from $18.60 to $41.92 (USD).

conclusionAll four rapid technologies were shown capable of detecting rifampicin resistance directly from sputum. The LiPA proved rapid, but was the most expensive. It was noted, however, that the LiPA test allows sterilization of samples prior to testing thereby reducing the risk of accidental laboratory transmission. In contrast the Etest was low cost, but slow and would be of limited assistance when treating patients. The phage test was the least reproducible test studied with failure rate of 27%. The test preferred by the laboratory personnel, direct BACTEC 460, requires further study to determine its accuracy in real-time treatment decisions in Uganda.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAntibiotics, AntitubercularFeasibility StudiesHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMycobacterium tuberculosisRifampinSensitivity and SpecificitySputumTuberculosis, Multidrug-ResistantTuberculosis, PulmonaryUgandaAntibiotics, AntitubercularReagent Kits, DiagnosticRifampin

Identifiers

PMID19709423
PMCPMC2744678
OpenAlexW2118982232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.