Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26894283›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Genotypic, Phenotypic and Clinical Validation of GeneXpert in Extra-Pulmonary and Pulmonary Tuberculosis in India.

Urvashi B Singh, Pooja Pandey, Girija Mehta, Anuj K Bhatnagar, Anant Mohan, Vinay Goyal, Vineet Ahuja, Ranjani Ramachandran, Kuldeep S Sachdeva, Jyotish C Samantaray

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. XpertThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Drug resistance characteristics ofEpidemiology and infection · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Urvashi B SinghDepartment of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Pooja PandeyDepartment of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Girija MehtaDepartment of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Anuj K BhatnagarRajan Babu Institute for Pulmonary Medicine and Tuberculosis, Delhi, India.
Anant MohanDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine and Sleep Disorders, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Vinay GoyalDepartment of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Vineet AhujaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Ranjani RamachandranWHO, Country Office for India, New Delhi, India.
Kuldeep S SachdevaCentral TB Division, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Jyotish C SamantarayDepartment of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INGovernment of India · INWorld Health Organization - India · IN

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNewer molecular diagnostics have brought paradigm shift in early diagnosis of tuberculosis [TB]. WHO recommended use of GeneXpert MTB/RIF [Xpert] for Extra-pulmonary [EP] TB; critics have since questioned its efficiency.

methodsThe present study was designed to assess the performance of GeneXpert in 761 extra-pulmonary and 384 pulmonary specimens from patients clinically suspected of TB and compare with Phenotypic, Genotypic and Composite reference standards [CRS].

resultsComparison of GeneXpert results to CRS, demonstrated sensitivity of 100% and 90.68%, specificity of 100% and 99.62% for pulmonary and extra-pulmonary samples. On comparison with culture, sensitivity for Rifampicin [Rif] resistance detection was 87.5% and 81.82% respectively, while specificity was 100% for both pulmonary and extra-pulmonary TB. On comparison to sequencing of rpoB gene [Rif resistance determining region, RRDR], sensitivity was respectively 93.33% and 90% while specificity was 100% in both pulmonary and extra-pulmonary TB. GeneXpert assay missed 533CCG mutation in one sputum and dual mutation [517 & 519] in one pus sample, detected by sequencing. Sequencing picked dual mutation [529, 530] in a sputum sample sensitive to Rif, demonstrating, not all RRDR mutations lead to resistance.

conclusionsCurrent study reports observations in a patient care setting in a high burden region, from a large collection of pulmonary and extra-pulmonary samples and puts to rest questions regarding sensitivity, specificity, detection of infrequent mutations and mutations responsible for low-level Rif resistance by GeneXpert. Improvements in the assay could offer further improvement in sensitivity of detection in different patient samples; nevertheless it may be difficult to improve sensitivity of Rif resistance detection if only one gene is targeted. Assay specificity was high both for TB detection and Rif resistance detection. Despite a few misses, the assay offers major boost to early diagnosis of TB and MDR-TB, in difficult to diagnose pauci-bacillary TB.

Indexed as

GenotypePhenotypeAdolescentAdultAntitubercular AgentsBacterial LoadDrug Resistance, BacterialFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedMutationMycobacterium tuberculosisProspective StudiesAntitubercular Agents

Identifiers

PMID26894283
PMCPMC4760939
OpenAlexW2284698038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.