ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2013
Usefulness of multiplex PCR in the diagnosis of genital tuberculosis in females with infertility.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2013. 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Female Genital Tuberculosis Among Infertile Women and Its Contributions to Primary and Secondary Infertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2022Pooled it
- Comprehensive Review of Genital Tuberculosis: Epidemiological Patterns, Causal Agents, Diagnostic Strategies, Symptomatology and Fertility Consequences.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Review
- Review
- Diagnostic performance of commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit in the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis.Journal of laboratory physicians · 2013Article
- Performance of Xpert MTB/RIF on Ascitic Fluid Samples for Detection of Abdominal Tuberculosis.Journal of laboratory physiciansArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the usefulness of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (m-PCR) in detecting uterine tuberculosis in women with infertility. In a prospective study, endometrial curetting from 620 females with infertility were investigated using laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, histopathology, smear microscopy, mycobacterial culture in BACTEC MGIT™ 960, and in-house m-PCR. The mean age of the women was 29.75 ± 4.66 years. The majority (596) sought medical attention for infertility; of them, 455 (76.34 %) presented with primary and 141 (23.65 %) with secondary infertility. A total of 158 (25.48 %) women were diagnosed as having uterine tuberculosis by at least one of the diagnostic methods. Among them, laparoscopy was positive in 46 (29.11 %), hysteroscopy in 77 (48.73 %), histopathology in only 8 (5.06 %), smear for acid fast bacilli in 4 (2.53 %), and liquid culture in 24 (15.18 %) patients. The in-house m-PCR was positive in 135 (85.44 %) women. Of these, 129 (95.55 %) samples were positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, while 6 (4.44 %) were positive for non-tuberculous mycobacterial DNA. Of the 129 M. tuberculosis PCR-positive women, 112 received anti-tubercular treatment and 23 of these conceived and fell pregnant after the completion of treatment. For the diagnosis of uterine tuberculosis, m-PCR was found to be the most efficient diagnostic tool compared to the other methods.
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.