ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Novel approach for improving sensitivity of microscopic detection of acid-fast bacilli (AFB) by use of the ReaSLR method.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolution of Laboratory Diagnosis of Tuberculosis.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Evaluation of a novel sputum processing ReaSLR methodology for improving sensitivity of smear microscopy in clinical samples.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Article
- Comprehensive Determination ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Article
- Use of sodium dodecyl sulfate to improve tuberculosis sputum smear microscopy.Global health innovation · 2019Article
- Differential Culturability ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ReaSLR methodology developed for sputum processing is a novel, low-cost, and simple technique that has improved the sensitivity of smear microscopy for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). Sample processing consists of rapid liquefaction of the sputum specimen with the ReaSLR reagent, followed by syringe filtration, concentration by centrifugation, and use of the sediment for smear microscopy. The performance of the ReaSLR kit was evaluated on 150 sputum samples and was compared with that of the modified Petroff method for sputum decontamination and concentration. Ziehl-Neelsen staining was performed for smear microscopy after processing by these two techniques; simultaneously, culture on Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium was done to evaluate the two methods. The efficiency of smear microscopy was 18/150 (12%) with the modified Petroff method compared to 47/150 (31.33%) with the ReaSLR method, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The ReaSLR method for smear microscopy demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 90.47% and 91.6%, respectively, whereas the modified Petroff method showed a sensitivity and specificity of 40.47% and 99.07%, respectively, compared to those of culture, which was used as the gold standard. With the newer ReaSLR method, the kappa coefficient (κ) was 0.8, which implies an excellent positive agreement. The ReaSLR method was found to be more sensitive than the conventional method for sputum smear microscopy. The newer ReaSLR method holds promise for adoption in TB control programs across the globe, as it was found suitable for the laboratory diagnosis of pulmonary TB. Further large-scale studies are needed to evaluate other aspects of this method.
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.