ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Evaluating the Auto-MODS assay, a novel tool for tuberculosis diagnosis for use in resource-limited settings.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Parallel Tests Using Culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, and SAT-TB in Sputum Plus Bronchial Alveolar Lavage Fluid Significantly Increase Diagnostic Performance of Smear-Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Performance of microscopic observation drug susceptibility for the rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis and detection of drug resistance in Bamako, Mali.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2017Observational
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an urgent need for simple, rapid, and affordable diagnostic tests for tuberculosis (TB) to combat the great burden of the disease in developing countries. The microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay (MODS) is a promising tool to fill this need, but it is not widely used due to concerns regarding its biosafety and efficiency. This study evaluated the automated MODS (Auto-MODS), which operates on principles similar to those of MODS but with several key modifications, making it an appealing alternative to MODS in resource-limited settings. In the operational setting of Chiang Rai, Thailand, we compared the performance of Auto-MODS with the gold standard liquid culture method in Thailand, mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) 960 plus the SD Bioline TB Ag MPT64 test, in terms of accuracy and efficiency in differentiating TB and non-TB samples as well as distinguishing TB and multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB samples. Sputum samples from clinically diagnosed TB and non-TB subjects across 17 hospitals in Chiang Rai were consecutively collected from May 2011 to September 2012. A total of 360 samples were available for evaluation, of which 221 (61.4%) were positive and 139 (38.6%) were negative for mycobacterial cultures according to MGIT 960. Of the 221 true-positive samples, Auto-MODS identified 212 as positive and 9 as negative (sensitivity, 95.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4% to 98.1%). Of the 139 true-negative samples, Auto-MODS identified 135 as negative and 4 as positive (specificity, 97.1%; 95% CI, 92.8% to 99.2%). The median time to culture positivity was 10 days, with an interquartile range of 8 to 13 days for Auto-MODS. Auto-MODS is an effective and cost-sensitive alternative diagnostic tool for TB diagnosis in resource-limited settings.
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.