Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22216117›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Comparison of quantitative techniques including Xpert MTB/RIF to evaluate mycobacterial burden.

Richard N van Zyl-Smit, Anke Binder, Richard Meldau, Hridesh Mishra, Patricia L Semple, Grant Theron, Jonathan Peter, Andrew Whitelaw, Suren K Sharma, Robin Warren and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Richard N van Zyl-SmitLung Infection and Immunity Unit, Division of Pulmonology and UCT Lung Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Anke Binder
Richard Meldau
Hridesh Mishra
Patricia L Semple
Grant Theron
Jonathan Peter
Andrew Whitelaw
Suren K Sharma
Robin Warren
Eric D Bateman
Keertan Dheda
University of Cape Town · ZAAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INStellenbosch University · ZAUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars Support Center @ Vanderbilt-AAMCR24TW007988 · FIC · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI VERMUND, STEN H. · 2007 to 2011
$27.6M
FIC NIH HHS R24 TW007988FIC NIH HHS R24TW007988
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccurate quantification of mycobacterial load is important for the evaluation of patient infectiousness, disease severity and monitoring treatment response in human and in-vitro laboratory models of disease. We hypothesized that newer techniques would perform as well as solid media culture to quantify mycobacterial burden in laboratory specimens.

methodsWe compared the turn-around-time, detection-threshold, dynamic range, reproducibility, relative discriminative ability, of 4 mycobacterial load determination techniques: automated liquid culture (BACTEC-MGIT-960), [(3)H]-uracil incorporation assays, luciferase-reporter construct bioluminescence, and quantitative PCR(Xpert -MTB/RIF) using serial dilutions of Mycobacterium bovis and Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37RV. Mycobacterial colony-forming-units(CFU) using 7H10-Middlebrook solid media served as the reference standard.

resultsAll 4 assays correlated well with the reference standard, however, bioluminescence and uracil assays had a detection threshold ≥1×10(3) organisms. By contrast, BACTEC-MGIT-960 liquid culture, although only providing results in days, was user-friendly, had the lowest detection threshold (<10 organisms), the greatest discriminative ability (1 vs. 10 organisms; p=0.02), and the best reproducibility (coefficient of variance of 2% vs. 38% compared to uracil incorporation; p=0.02). Xpert-MTB/RIF correlated well with mycobacterial load, had a rapid turn-around-time (<2 hours), was user friendly, but had a detection limit of ~100 organisms.

conclusionsChoosing a technique to quantify mycobacterial burden for laboratory or clinical research depends on availability of resources and the question being addressed. Automated liquid culture has good discriminative ability and low detection threshold but results are only obtained in days. Xpert MTB/RIF provides rapid quantification of mycobacterial burden, but has a poorer discrimination and detection threshold.

Indexed as

Colony Count, MicrobialLuminescenceMycobacterium bovisMycobacterium tuberculosisPolymerase Chain Reaction

Identifiers

PMID22216117
PMCPMC3245241
OpenAlexW2128464380

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.