ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
Evaluating Shared Laboratory Services: Detecting Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex and Drug Resistance Using Molecular and Culture-Based Methods.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the postal service for referral of specimen of drug resistance tuberculosis in Amhara region, Ethiopia; mixed method.African health sciences · 2021Article
- Treatment outcomes of children and adolescents receiving drug-resistant TB treatment in a routine TB programme, Mumbai, India.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- [Visualized detection for mycobacterium tuberculosis using loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2017Article
- The Use of a Shared Services Model for Mycobacteriology Testing: Lessons Learned.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe explored sharing nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) and molecular and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing between two state public health tuberculosis (TB) laboratories, and evaluated turnaround times and cost-effectiveness.
methodsFrom September 1, 2012, to May 30, 2013, the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (Wisconsin Lab) submitted specimens to the Microbial Diseases Laboratory of the California Department of Public Health (California Lab) for NAAT and molecular drug susceptibility testing (MDST) by pyrosequencing, and culture-based TB drug susceptibility testing by the BACTEC(TM) MGIT(TM) 960 system.
resultsA total of 182 specimens were referred to the California Lab, and 47 TB cases and 12 drug-resistant cases were identified. The average time for specimen transport was two days, which included one day for processing and packaging in the submitting laboratory. The average turnaround time for NAAT was 0.3 days at the Wisconsin Lab and 3.8 days at the California Lab, including time for specimen transport. Turnaround time for culture-based drug susceptibility testing increased by a median of 16 days when specimens were sent to the California Lab, but MDST results were reported in fewer than four days, a median of 22 days sooner than any culture-based drug susceptibility testing results.
conclusionThis study revealed advantages and disadvantages associated with sharing services, and identified opportunities for improvement. Referral of specimens resulted in longer turnaround times for mycobacteriology test results and additional costs for transporting specimens. However, specialized testing such as pyrosequencing may not be available in low TB incidence areas, and these rapid results can have positive effects on patient management and TB control.
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.