Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21411592›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2011

Comparison of the Xpert MTB/RIF test with an IS6110-TaqMan real-time PCR assay for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in respiratory and nonrespiratory specimens.

Sylvie Armand, Pascale Vanhuls, Guy Delcroix, René Courcol, Nadine Lemaître

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 176 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. XpertThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. The diagnostic yield of brushing versus non-brushing bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for Xpert MTB/RIF in patients with suspected tuberculosis: a prospective self-controlled study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sylvie ArmandCHU Lille, F-59000 Lille, France.
Pascale Vanhuls
Guy Delcroix
René Courcol
Nadine Lemaître
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille · FRUniversité de Lille · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sensitivities of the Xpert MTB/RIF test and an in-house IS6110-based real-time PCR using TaqMan probes (IS6110-TaqMan assay) for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) DNA were compared by use of 117 clinical specimens (97 culture positive and 20 culture negative for MTBC) that were frozen in sediment. The 97 clinical specimens included 60 respiratory and 37 nonrespiratory specimens distributed into 36 smear-positive and 61 smear-negative specimens. Among the 97 culture-positive specimens, 4 had rifampin-resistant isolates. Both methods were highly specific and exhibited excellent sensitivity (100%) with smear-positive specimens. The sensitivity of the Xpert MTB/RIF test with the whole smear-negative specimens was more reduced than that of the IS6110-TaqMan assay (48 versus 69%, P = 0.005). Both methods exhibited similar sensitivities with smear-negative respiratory specimens, but the Xpert MTB/RIF test had lower sensitivity with smear-negative nonrespiratory specimens than the IS6110-TaqMan assay (37 versus 71%, P = 0.013). Finally, the sensitivities of the Xpert MTB/RIF test and the IS6110-TaqMan assay were 79% and 84%, respectively, with respiratory specimens and 53% and 78%, respectively (P = 0.013), with nonrespiratory specimens. The Xpert MTB/RIF test correctly detected the rifampin resistance in smear-positive specimens but not in the one smear-negative specimen. The Xpert MTB/RIF test is a simple rapid method well adapted to a routine laboratory that appeared to be as sensitive as the IS6110-TaqMan assay with respiratory specimens but less sensitive with paucibacillary specimens, such as smear-negative nonrespiratory specimens.

Indexed as

Antitubercular AgentsBacteriological TechniquesDrug Resistance, BacterialHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMycobacterium tuberculosisRifampinSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosisAntitubercular AgentsRifampin

Identifiers

PMID21411592
PMCPMC3122654
OpenAlexW2118461432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.