Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23885922›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2013

Comparison of direct versus concentrated smear microscopy in detection of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Mohammad Khaja Mafij Uddin, Md Raihan Chowdhury, Shahriar Ahmed, Md Toufiq Rahman, Razia Khatun, Frank van Leth, Sayera Banu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Distribution and Frequency ofInfection and drug resistance · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Multicenter evaluation of membrane-based smear microscopy for detecting acid-fast bacilli in China.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. General and advanced diagnostic tools to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis and their drug susceptibility: a review.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Mohammad Khaja Mafij UddinInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh.
Md Raihan Chowdhury
Shahriar Ahmed
Md Toufiq Rahman
Razia Khatun
Frank van Leth
Sayera Banu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSputum smear microscopy is fast and inexpensive technique for detecting tuberculosis (TB) in high incidence areas but has low sensitivity. Physical and chemical sputum processing along with centrifugation have been found to show promise in overcoming this limitation. Our objective was to compare the sensitivity of smear microscopy obtained with smears made directly from respiratory specimens to those from concentrated specimens.

methodsBy active screening, 915 TB suspects were identified from Dhaka Central Jail and sputum specimens were aseptically collected. Direct smears were prepared by taking a small portion of the purulent part of the sputum with a sterile loop. The specimens were then processed by a standard N-acetyl-L-cysteine-NaOH digestion-decontamination method to prepare concentrated specimens. Both smears were then air dried, heat fixed, and stained by the Ziehl-Neelsen staining technique. The stained slides were examined under oil immersion and were graded following International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases guidelines. All the specimens were inoculated into Lowenstein-Jensen (L-J) media and culture results were considered as gold standard to calculate sensitivity.

resultsOf 915 specimens, 73 (8%) specimens were positive both on direct and concentrated methods, one sample was positive on direct microscopy but was negative on concentrated method. An extra 14 (1.5%) samples were positive on concentrated method which were negative on direct smear. In L-J media 105 specimens were found positive for TB bacilli and of them, 74 (70.5%) and 87 (82.9%) were positive in direct and concentrated smear, respectively. The sensitivity of direct and concentrated smear microscopy was different when using positive culture as the gold standard (71% vs. 83%).

conclusionsThe results showed that concentrated technique increases the sensitivity of microscopy up to 12%. Therefore, the national programs in high TB burden countries may consider incorporating the technique into their guidelines at least in the district and higher level laboratories to improve case finding strategy.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesHumansMicroscopyMycobacterium tuberculosisPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificitySputumStaining and LabelingTuberculosis, Pulmonary

Identifiers

PMID23885922
PMCPMC3733684

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.