ArticlePloS one2014
Clinical utility of a novel molecular assay in various combination strategies with existing methods for diagnosis of HIV-related tuberculosis in Uganda.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of rifampicin resistance in different regions: a meta-analysis.BMC microbiology · 2019Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Effectiveness of GeneXpert® in the diagnosis of tuberculosis in people living with HIV/AIDS.Revista de saude publica · 2021Review
- Article
- Prevalence and patterns of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance conferring mutations in Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from Uganda.PloS one · 2018Article
- Diagnostic performance of smear microscopy and incremental yield of Xpert in detection of pulmonary tuberculosis in Rwanda.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
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 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLow income, high-tuberculosis burden, countries are considering selective deployment of Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) due to high cost per test. We compared the diagnostic gain of the Xpert add-on strategy with Xpert replacement strategy for pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis among HIV-infected adults to inform its implementation.
methodsThe first diagnostic sputum sample of 424 HIV-infected adults (67% with CD4 counts ≤200/mm3) suspected for tuberculosis was tested by direct Ziehl-Neelsen (DZN) and direct fluorescent microscopy (DFM); concentrated fluorescent microscopy (CFM); Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) and Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) culture; and Xpert. Overall diagnostic yield and sensitivity were calculated using MGIT as reference comparator. The sensitivity of Xpert in an add-on strategy was calculated as the number of smear negative but Xpert positive participants among MGIT positive participants.
resultsA total of 123 (29.0%) participants were MGIT culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The sensitivity (95% confidence interval) was 31.7% (23.6-40.7%) for DZN, 35.0% (26.5-44.0%) for DFM, 43.9% (34.9-53.1%) for CFM, 76.4% (67.9-83.6) for Xpert and 81.3% (73.2-87.7%) for LJ culture. Add-on strategy Xpert showed an incremental sensitivity of 44.7% (35.7-53.9%) when added to DZN, 42.3% (33.4-51.5%) to DFM and 35.0% (26.5-44.0%) to CFM. This translated to an overall sensitivity of 76.4%, 77.3% and 79.0% for add-on strategies based on DZN, DFM and CFM, respectively, compared to 76.4% for Xpert done independently. From replacement to add-on strategy, the number of Xpert cartridges needed was reduced by approximately 10%.
conclusionsAmong HIV-infected TB suspects, doing smear microscopy prior to Xpert assay in add-on fashion only identifies a few additional TB cases.
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.