ArticlePloS one2010
Development of low-cost inverted microscope to detect early growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in MODS culture.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-cost 3D-printed inverted microscope to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a MODS culture.Tuberculosis (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Article
- A Low Cost/Low Power Open Source Sensor System for Automated Tuberculosis Drug Susceptibility Testing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- Evaluation of Microscopic Observation Drug Susceptibility (MODS) and the string test for rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV/AIDS patients in Bolivia.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Emerging technologies for monitoring drug-resistant tuberculosis at the point-of-care.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2014Review
- Evaluation of a microcolony growth monitoring method for the rapid determination of ethambutol resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Low-cost motility tracking system (LOCOMOTIS) for time-lapse microscopy applications and cell visualisation.PloS one · 2014Article
- Article
- Prospective evaluation of simply modified MODS assay: an effective tool for TB diagnosis and detection of MDR-TB.Infection and drug resistance · 2012Article
- Direct nitrate reductase assay versus microscopic observation drug susceptibility test for rapid detection of MDR-TB in Uganda.PloS one · 2011Article
- Reliability of the MODS assay decentralisation process in three health regions in Peru.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2011Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe microscopic observation drug susceptibility (MODS) assay for rapid, low-cost detection of tuberculosis and multidrug resistant tuberculosis depends upon visualization of the characteristic cording colonies of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in liquid media. This has conventionally required an inverted light microscope in order to inspect the MODS culture plates from below. Few tuberculosis laboratories have this item and the capital cost of $5,000 for a high-end microscope could be a significant obstacle to MODS roll-out. METHODOLOGY: We hypothesized that the precise definition provided by costly high-specification inverted light microscopes might not be necessary for pattern recognition. SIGNIFICANCE: In this work we describe the development of a low-cost artesenal inverted microscope that can operate in both a standard or digital mode to effectively replace the expensive commercial inverted light microscope, and an integrated system that could permit a local and remote diagnosis of tuberculosis.
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.