ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2016
The reliability analysis of Xpert-positive result for smear-negative and culture-negative specimen collected from bone and joint tuberculosis suspects.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- XpertThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- The Role of Cartridge-Based Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (CBNAAT), Line Probe Assay (LPA), Liquid Culture, Acid-Fast Bacilli (AFB) Smear and Histopathology in the Diagnosis of Osteoarticular Tuberculosis.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Diagnostic accuracy evaluation of the conventional and molecular tests for Spinal Tuberculosis in a cohort, head-to-head study.Emerging microbes & infections · 2018Article
- 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has been widely used for pulmonary and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis. In clinical practice, specimen yielding smear-negative, culture-negative but Xpert-positive results is frequently confronted. Due to the notorious possibility of contamination that molecular tests always been thought of, Xpert-positive results without bacteriological supporting evidence arouse great confusions to clinicians.
methodsA retrospective study was performed. From April 2014 to February 2015, 852 clinical specimens were Xpert-positive. The results of Xpert assay, bacteriological and pathological examinations from either the same specimens or from the specimens collected during same clinical operations were investigated.
resultsA total of 90 specimens with Xpert-positive but smear-negative and culture-negative results were recruited, and 81 of them were pus specimens collected from Bone and Joint Tuberculosis (BJTB) patients. According to the pathological examination results, 77 of the 81 pus specimens, 8 of 9 other types of specimens were confirmed as either TB or strongly suggestive of TB; three pus specimens and one biopsy tissue were also suggested TB but with less stronger evidence; only one pus specimen was not TB suggestive.
conclusionsOur study demonstrated that Xpert could be trusted for BJTB diagnosis even when no supporting bacteriological evidence is available in high TB prevalence settings. Our results will alleviate the confusion among clinicians in such scenarios.
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.