Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23259765›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2012

Comparison between the BACTEC MGIT 960 system and the agar proportion method for susceptibility testing of multidrug resistant tuberculosis strains in a high burden setting of South Africa.

Halima M Said, Marleen M Kock, Nazir A Ismail, Kamaldeen Baba, Shaheed V Omar, Ayman G Osman, Anwar A Hoosen, Marthie M Ehlers

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Automated liquid culture system misses isoniazid heteroresistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates with mutations in the promoter region of the inhA gene.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Halima M SaidDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Health Science, University of Pretoria, Private bag X323, arcadia, Pretoria, 0007, South Africa. ahlammdd@yahoo.com
Marleen M Kock
Nazir A Ismail
Kamaldeen Baba
Shaheed V Omar
Ayman G Osman
Anwar A Hoosen
Marthie M Ehlers
University of Pretoria · ZANational Health Laboratory Service · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing problem of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) [ie resistant to at least isoniazid (INH) and rifampicin (RIF)] is becoming a global problem. Successful treatment outcome for MDR-TB depends on reliable and accurate drug susceptibility testing of first-line and second-line anti-TB drugs.

methodConsecutive M. tuberculosis isolates identified as MDR-TB during August 2007 to January 2008 using the BACTEC MGIT 960 systems and the agar proportion method were included in this study. Susceptibility testing of MDR-TB isolates against ethambutol (EMB) and streptomycin (STR) as well as two second-line anti-TB drugs, kanamycin (KAN) and ofloxacin (OFX) was performed using the BACTEC MGIT 960 systems at a routine diagnostic laboratory. The results were compared to those obtained by the agar proportion method.

resultThe agreement between the BACTEC MGIT 960 system and the agar proportion method was 44% for EMB, 61% for STR and 89% for both KAN and OFX. The sensitivity and specificity of the BACTEC MGIT 960 system using the agar proportion method as a gold standard was 92% and 37% for EMB, 95% and 37% for STR, 27% and 97% for KAN and 84% and 90% for OFX, respectively.

conclusionsThe BACTEC MGIT 960 system showed acceptable sensitivity for EMB, STR, and OFX; however, the BACTEC MGIT 960 system was less specific for EMB and STR and demonstrated a low sensitivity for KAN. The lower agreement found between the two methods suggests the unreliability of the BACTEC MGIT 960 system for the drugs tested. The reasons for the lower agreement between the two methods need to be investigated and further studies are needed in this setting to confirm the study finding.

Indexed as

Antitubercular AgentsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMycobacterium tuberculosisSensitivity and SpecificitySouth AfricaTuberculosis, Multidrug-ResistantAntitubercular Agents

Identifiers

PMID23259765
PMCPMC3543708
OpenAlexW1975214314

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.