SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 475 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
GeneXpert Performance Evaluation for Linkage to Tuberculosis Care: The XPEL-TB Trial
Xpert MTB/RIF Test as the Initial Diagnostic Test in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: a Pragmatic Trial
Who cites it
475 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,103 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin-resistance strains using GeneXpert-MTB/RIF assay in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Low-complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Review: missed tuberculosis cases in India: a systematic analysis of diagnostic, treatment, and reporting gaps.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- How to diagnose TB in migrants? A systematic review of reviews and decision tree analytical modelling exercise to evaluate properties for single and combined tuberculosis screening tests.The European respiratory journal · 2025Pooled it
- Factors associated with tuberculosis treatment initiation among bacteriologically negative individuals evaluated for tuberculosis: An individual patient data meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of Xpert in tuberculosis diagnosis based on various specimens: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Pooled it
- Stool Xpert MTB/RIF as a possible diagnostic alternative to sputum in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of molecular diagnostic tests on diagnostic and treatment delays in tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Pooled it
- Application of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing inFrontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Community-based active case-finding interventions for tuberculosis: a systematic review.The Lancet. Public health · 2021Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra assays for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Differential yield of universal versus selective drug susceptibility testing of patients with tuberculosis in high-burden countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2020Pooled it
- Mycobacterium tuberculosis bloodstream infection prevalence, diagnosis, and mortality risk in seriously ill adults with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2020Pooled it
- Decision Analytic Modeling for Global Clinical Trial Planning: A Case for HIV-Positive Patients at High Risk forInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Lipoarabinomannan as a Rapid Rule-Out Tool for Smear-Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis in a Nonhuman Immunodeficiency Virus-Predominant, High-Burden Setting: A Prospective Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
415 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate, rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and TB drug resistance is critical for improving patient care and decreasing TB transmission. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is an automated test that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, generally within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued initial recommendations on Xpert® MTB/RIF in early 2011. A Cochrane Review on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance was published January 2013. We performed this updated Cochrane Review as part of a WHO process to develop updated guidelines on the use of the test.
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB (TB detection), where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as both an initial test replacing microscopy and an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection, where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as the initial test replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST).The populations of interest were adults presumed to have pulmonary, rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection. The settings of interest were intermediate- and peripheral-level laboratories. The latter may be associated with primary health care facilities. SEARCH
methodsWe searched for publications in any language up to 7 February 2013 in the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that allowed for extraction of data evaluating Xpert® MTB/RIF against the reference standard. We excluded gastric fluid specimens. The reference standard for TB was culture and for rifampicin resistance was phenotypic culture-based DST. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using QUADAS-2 and carried out meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert® MTB/RIF separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection. For TB detection, we performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model and compared the sensitivity of Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy against culture as reference standard. For rifampicin resistance detection, we undertook univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. MAIN
resultsWe included 27 unique studies (integrating nine new studies) involving 9557 participants. Sixteen studies (59%) were performed in low- or middle-income countries. For all QUADAS-2 domains, most studies were at low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability.As an initial test replacing smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 89% [95% Credible Interval (CrI) 85% to 92%] and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%), (22 studies, 8998 participants: 2953 confirmed TB, 6045 non-TB).As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result, Xpert®MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 67% (95% CrI 60% to 74%) and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%; 21 studies, 6950 participants).For smear-positive, culture-positive TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 21 studies, 1936 participants).For people with HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 79% (95% CrI 70% to 86%; 7 studies, 1789 participants), and for people without HIV infection, it was 86% (95% CrI 76% to 92%; 7 studies, 1470 participants). Comparison with smear microscopy In comparison with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF increased TB detection among culture-confirmed cases by 23% (95% CrI 15% to 32%; 21 studies, 8880 participants).For TB detection, if pooled sensitivity estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients where 10% of those with symptoms have TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF will diagnose 88 cases and miss 12 cases, whereas sputum microscopy will diagnose 65 cases and miss 35 cases. Rifampicin resistance For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 95% (95% CrI 90% to 97%; 17 studies, 555 rifampicin resistance positives) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 24 studies, 2411 rifampicin resistance negatives). Among 180 specimens with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Xpert® MTB/RIF was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM (14 studies, 2626 participants).For rifampicin resistance detection, if the pooled accuracy estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals where 15% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 143 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss eight cases, and correctly identify 833 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 17 individuals as resistant. Where 5% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 48 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss three cases and correctly identify 931 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 19 individuals as resistant. AUTHORS'
conclusionsIn adults thought to have TB, with or without HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF is sensitive and specific. Compared with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF substantially increases TB detection among culture-confirmed cases. Xpert® MTB/RIF has higher sensitivity for TB detection in smear-positive than smear-negative patients. Nonetheless, this test may be valuable as an add-on test following smear microscopy in patients previously found to be smear-negative. For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF provides accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of MDR-TB treatment, pending results from conventional culture and DST. The tests are expensive, so current research evaluating the use of Xpert® MTB/RIF in TB programmes in high TB burden settings will help evaluate how this investment may help start treatment promptly and improve outcomes.
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.