ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2010
Diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-positive patients by microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of GeneXpert, MODS and the WHO 2007 algorithm for diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2013Pooled it
- Article
- Evaluation of microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay for diagnosis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Viet Nam.BMC infectious diseases · 2012Article
- Performance of Clinical Algorithms for Smear-Negative Tuberculosis in HIV-Infected Persons in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.Tuberculosis research and treatment · 2012Article
- Improving the diagnosis of tuberculosis: From QuantiFERON to new techniques to diagnose tuberculosis infections.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2011Review
- Update on tuberculosis: TB in the early 21st century.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 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
26 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay (MODS) is a novel and promising test for the early diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). We evaluated the MODS assay for the early diagnosis of TB in HIV-positive patients presenting to Pham Ngoc Thach Hospital for Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases in southern Vietnam. A total of 738 consecutive sputum samples collected from 307 HIV-positive individuals suspected of TB were tested by smear, MODS, and the mycobacteria growth indicator tube method (MGIT). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of MODS compared to the microbiological gold standard (either smear or MGIT) were 87 and 93%, respectively. The sensitivities of smear, MODS, and MGIT were 57, 71, and 75%, respectively, against clinical gold standard (MODS versus smear, P<0.001; MODS versus MGIT, P=0.03). The clinical gold standard was defined as patients who had a clinical examination and treatment consistent with TB, with or without microbiological confirmation. For the diagnosis of smear-negative patients, the sensitivities of MODS and MGIT were 38 and 45%, respectively (P=0.08). The median times to detection using MODS and MGIT were 8 and 11 days, respectively, and they were 11 and 17 days, respectively, for smear-negative samples. The original bacterial/fungal contamination rate of MODS was 1.1%, while it was 2.6% for MGIT. The cross-contamination rate of MODS was 4.7%. In conclusion, MODS is a sensitive, specific, and rapid test that is appropriate for the detection of HIV-associated TB; its cost and ease of use make it particularly useful in resource-limited settings.
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.