ArticlePloS one2014
Diagnosis of tuberculosis by using a nucleic acid amplification test in an urban population with high HIV prevalence in the United States.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paediatric tuberculosis diagnosis using Mycobacterium tuberculosis real-time polymerase chain reaction assay: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) in urine for genitourinary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Innovative Approaches in Tuberculosis Diagnosis: Challenges and Future Directions.International journal of MCH and AIDS · 2026Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUse of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) has been recommended on respiratory specimens submitted for acid-fast bacilli (AFB) testing. It also helps distinguish between TB and non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) species in a setting where NTM rates are relatively high. The purposes of this study are to describe the trend and characteristics of all AFB smear-positive respiratory samples that underwent amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct (MTD) testing, a type of NAAT, and to evaluate the clinical utility and necessity of the test for diagnosis of TB in a population with high-HIV prevalence.
methodsProspective diagnostic testing and retrospective data analyses were conducted on all AFB smear-positive respiratory samples that underwent MTD testing from 2001 to 2011 at Grady Memorial Hospital (GMH), Atlanta, USA. The test performance was compared to culture.
resultsA total of 2,240 AFB smear-positive specimens from 1,412 patients were tested and analyzed in the study. The proportion of specimens that were culture-positive for TB was 28.5%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the MTD were 99.0%, 98.0%, 95.3% and 99.6%, respectively. A downward trend was observed in the yearly numbers as well as the proportions of MTD-positive specimens during the study period (p<0.01). There were 2,027 (90.5%) specimens from patients with known HIV status, of which 70.6% was HIV positive and the majority of them (81.8%) had CD4 counts of less than 200 cells/µL. HIV-positives were more likely to have NTM compared to HIV negatives (67.7% vs. 35.4%, p<0.01).
conclusionDespite the decrease in the incidence of TB, NAAT continues to be an accurate and important diagnostic test in a population with high HIV prevalence, and it differentiates TB and NTM organisms.
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.