ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014
Comparison of amplicor and GeneXpert MTB/RIF tests for diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 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 13 papers, 5 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.
A Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial of Adjunctive Dexamethasone for the Treatment of HIV-infected Adults With Tuberculous Meningitis
A Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Non-inferiority Trial of Adjunctive Dexamethasone for the Treatment of HIV-uninfected Adults With Tuberculous Meningitis Stratified by Leukotriene A4 Hydrolase Genotype
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous meningitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 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
- Pooled analysis of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosing tuberculous meningitis.Bioscience reports · 2020Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Tuberculous Meningitis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Pooled it
- XpertThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Sequential testing with Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai University Hospital.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advancing Diagnosis and Treatment in People Living with HIV and Tuberculosis Meningitis.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2023Review
- A novel, rapid (within hours) culture-free diagnostic method for detecting live Mycobacterium tuberculosis with high sensitivity.EBioMedicine · 2020Article
- Methods for rapid diagnosis of meningitis etiology in adults.Biomarkers in medicine · 2020Review
- IgG response toAccess microbiology · 2020Article
- Microbiological diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: Phenotype to genotype.The Indian journal of medical research · 2019Review
- Global HIV neurology: a comprehensive review.AIDS (London, England) · 2019Review
- Recent Developments in Tuberculous Meningitis Pathogenesis and Diagnostics.Wellcome open research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are no data about the comparative accuracy of commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests (GeneXpert MTB/RIF and Roche Amplicor) for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM). A total of 148 patients with suspected TBM were evaluated, and cultures served as the reference standard. The sensitivities and specificities (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the Amplicor and Xpert MTB/RIF tests were similar: 46 (31-60) versus 50 (33-67) and 99 (93-100) and 94 (84-99), respectively.
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.