Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23263819›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2013

Performance of Cepheid ® Xpert MTB/RIF ® and TB-Biochip ® MDR in two regions of Russia with a high prevalence of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

E V Kurbatova, D A Kaminski, V V Erokhin, G V Volchenkov, S N Andreevskaya, L N Chernousova, O V Demikhova, J V Ershova, N V Kaunetis, T A Kuznetsova and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. TheAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Clinical Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF Testing in Hospitalized Patients With Presumptive Pulmonary Tuberculosis in the United States.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2017
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Impact of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay on triage of respiratory isolation rooms for inpatients with presumed tuberculosis: a hypothetical trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2014
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

E V KurbatovaThe U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
D A Kaminski
V V Erokhin
G V Volchenkov
S N Andreevskaya
L N Chernousova
O V Demikhova
J V Ershova
N V Kaunetis
T A Kuznetsova
E E Larionova
T G Smirnova
T R Somova
I A Vasilieva
A V Vorobieva
S S Zolkina
J P Cegielski
Central Scientific Research Institute of Tuberculosis Russian Academy of Medical Sciences · RUVladimir Law Institute · RUCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · UG

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of Cepheid® Xpert MTB/RIF® ("Xpert") and TB-Biochip® MDR ("TB-Biochip"). Sputum specimens from adults with presumptive tuberculosis (TB) were homogenized and split for: (1) direct Xpert and microscopy, and (2) concentration for Xpert, microscopy, culture [Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) solid media and Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube® (MGIT)], indirect drug susceptibility testing (DST) using the absolute concentration method and MGIT, and TB-Biochip. In total, 109 of 238 (45.8 %) specimens were culture-positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC), and, of these, 67 isolates were rifampicin resistant (RIF-R) by phenotypic DST and 64/67 (95.5 %) were isoniazid resistant (INH-R). Compared to culture of the same specimen, a single direct Xpert was more sensitive for detecting MTBC [95.3 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI), 90.0-98.3 %] than direct (59.6 %, 95 % CI, 50.2-68.5 %) or concentrated smear (85.3 %, 95 % CI, 77.7-91.1 %) or LJ culture (80.8 %, 95 % CI, 72.4-87.5 %); the specificity was 86.0 % (95 % CI, 78.9-91.3 %). Compared with MGIT DST, Xpert correctly identified 98.2 % (95 % CI, 91.5-99.9 %) of RIF-R and 95.5 % (95 % CI, 85.8-99.2 %) of RIF-susceptible (RIF-S) specimens. In a subset of 104 specimens, the sensitivity of TB-Biochip for MTBC detection compared to culture was 97.3 % (95 % CI, 91.0-99.5 %); the specificity was 78.1 % (95 % CI, 61.5-89.9 %). TB-Biochip correctly identified 100 % (95 % CI, 94.2-100 %) of RIF-R, 94.7 % (95 % CI, 76.7-99.7 %) of RIF-S, 98.2 % (95 % CI, 91.4-99.9 %) of INH-R, and 78.6 % (95 % CI, 52.1-94.2 %) of INH-S specimens compared to MGIT DST. Xpert and Biochip were similar in accuracy for detecting MTBC and RIF resistance compared to conventional culture methods.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAdultHumansMycobacterium tuberculosisPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsRussiaSensitivity and SpecificitySputumTuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant

Identifiers

PMID23263819
PMCPMC4596226
OpenAlexW1994666903

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.