Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23786563›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2013

Comparison of Xpert MTB/RIF with ProbeTec ET DTB and COBAS TaqMan MTB for direct detection of M. tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens.

Uladzimir Antonenka, Sabine Hofmann-Thiel, Laziz Turaev, Ainura Esenalieva, Mokhonim Abdulloeva, Evgeni Sahalchyk, Tarig Alnour, Harald Hoffmann

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

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Use of a FluoroTypeDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Uladzimir AntonenkaIML red, Supranational Reference Laboratory of Tuberculosis, Gauting, Germany.
Sabine Hofmann-Thiel
Laziz Turaev
Ainura Esenalieva
Mokhonim Abdulloeva
Evgeni Sahalchyk
Tarig Alnour
Harald Hoffmann
Synlab (Germany) · DEAlzaiem Alazhari University · SDMinistry of Health of Kyrgyzstan · KGNational University of Uzbekistan · UZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNucleic acid amplification assays allow for the rapid and accurate detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) directly in clinical specimens thereby facilitating diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). With the fully automated Xpert MTB/RIF system (Cepheid) an innovative solution of TB diagnostics has been launched. We performed a direct head-to-head comparison of Xpert MTB/RIF with two widely used commercial assays, ProbeTec ET DTB (DTB) (Becton-Dickinson) and COBAS TaqMan MTB (CTM-MTB) (Roche).

methods121 pre-characterized respiratory specimens (68 culture-positive for MTB complex, 24 culture-positive for non-tuberculous mycobacteria and 29 culture-negative) taken from our frozen specimen bank were tested for the presence of MTB complex by the three assays.

resultsAmong culture-positive samples (n = 68), overall sensitivity for detection of MTB complex was 74.6%, 73.8%, and 79.1% for Xpert MTB/RIF, CTM-MTB, and DTB, respectively. Within the subgroup of smear-negative TB samples (n = 51) sensitivity was 68% for Xpert MTB/RIF and CTM-MTB and 72% for DTB. Among smear-positive TB samples (n = 17), all (100%) were detected by DTB and 94.1% and 93.3% by Xpert MTB/RIF and CTM-MTB, respectively. Specificity was best for CTM-MTB (100%) and lowest for Xpert MTB/RIF (96.2%) due to misidentification of two NTM samples as MTB complex. CTM-MTB yielded the highest rate of invalid results (4.1%) (0.8% by Xpert MTB/RIF and DTB, respectively).

conclusionsThe direct comparison of Xpert MTB/RIF with CTM-MTB and DTB yielded similar overall performance data. Whereas DTB was slightly superior to Xpert MTB/RIF in terms of sensitivity, at least in the sample collection tested here, CTM-MTB performed best in terms of specificity.

Indexed as

HumansMolecular TypingMycobacterium tuberculosisNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosis, Pulmonary

Identifiers

PMID23786563
PMCPMC3699374
OpenAlexW2134732639

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.