ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Increased sensitivity in diagnosis of tuberculosis in HIV-positive patients through the small-membrane-filter method of microscopy.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A method for purifying and concentrating Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum specimens: The double-membrane filtration and concentration method (DMFCM).Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2025Article
- Evaluation and Comparison of Laboratory Methods in Diagnosing Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Nontuberculous Mycobacteria in 3012 Sputum Samples.The clinical respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Predictive capabilities of baseline radiological findings for early and late disease outcomes within sensitive and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis cases.European journal of radiology open · 2023Article
- The diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra on Pericardial, Pleural and Ascitic cohort study fluids for diagnosis of extra-pulmonary Tuberculosis at a referral hospital in Malawi.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the Small Membrane Filtration Method for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in a High-HIV-Prevalence Setting.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Evaluation of a modified small membrane filtration method.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- Prospective cross-sectional evaluation of the small membrane filtration method for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The sensitivity of microscopy for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) is around 50% but decreases by about 15% in patients with suspected TB who are coinfected with HIV. Here, we compared the accuracies of three microscopy methods for processing sputum smears (concentration by centrifugation with or without N-acetyl-L-cysteine [NALC] and concentration by filtration on a polycarbonate membrane) to that of culture on Ogawa-Kudoh medium as the gold standard method. Sputum samples were obtained from 432 patients with suspected pulmonary TB, of whom 60% were infected with HIV. Analysis was performed using the first specimen. Compared to the gold standard culture, the small-membrane-filter (SMF) method was the most sensitive microscopic method. In HIV-infected TB patients, the sensitivity of the SMF method was significantly higher than those for centrifugation of sputum samples with or without NALC treatment (61.9%, 47.6%, and 45.2%, respectively; P = 0.001). Similarly, in TB patients without HIV infection, the sensitivity of the SMF method was significantly higher than those for centrifugation of sputum samples with or without NALC treatment (81.8%, 63.6%, and 57.5%, respectively; P = 0.001). In the two study groups, TB patients with or without HIV, no significant differences between the specificities of the three methods were observed. Handling of the second sputum sample similarly by centrifugation with or without NALC and by the SMF method increased positivities by 13%, 11%, and 4%, respectively. The overall agreement between microscopy and culture was above 90% for all groups. Microscopic evaluation of the sputum samples treated with NALC compared to those not treated with NALC did not show any increase in sensitivity. Altogether, the sensitivity of the SMF method is higher than those of the other two microscopic methods studied without a loss of specificity.
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.