Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27375902›Full record

ArticleTuberculosis research and treatment2016

Molecular and Growth-Based Drug Susceptibility Testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex for Ethambutol Resistance in the United States.

Mitchell A Yakrus, Jeffrey Driscoll, Allison McAlister, David Sikes, Denise Hartline, Beverly Metchock, Angela M Starks

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tuberculosis research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Molecular Analysis of Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Resistance ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Genomic Variations in Drug ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  4. Multidrug-resistant strains ofVeterinary world · 2020
    Article
  5. Design and Implementation of Data Exchange Formats for Molecular Detection of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mitchell A YakrusCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4941-631X
Jeffrey DriscollCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2723-0298
Allison McAlisterCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA.
David SikesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3465-710X
Denise HartlineCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA.
Beverly MetchockCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA.
Angela M StarksCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethambutol (EMB) is used as a part of drug regimens for treatment of tuberculosis (TB). Susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) isolates to EMB can be discerned by DNA sequencing to detect mutations in the embB gene associated with resistance. US Public Health Laboratories (PHL) primarily use growth-based drug susceptibility test (DST) methods to determine EMB resistance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a service for molecular detection of drug resistance (MDDR) by DNA sequencing and concurrent growth-based DST using agar proportion. PHL and CDC test results were compared for 211 MTBC samples submitted to CDC from September 2009 through February 2011. Concordance between growth-based DST results from PHL and CDC was 88.2%. A growth-based comparison of 39 samples, where an embB mutation associated with EMB resistance was detected, revealed a higher percentage of EMB resistance by CDC (84.6%) than by PHL (59.0%) which was significant (P value = 0.002). Discordance between all growth-based test results from PHL and CDC was also significant (P value = 0.003). Most discordance was linked to false susceptibility using the BACTEC™ MGIT™ 960 (MGIT) growth-based system. Our analysis supports coalescing growth-based and molecular results for an informed interpretation of potential EMB resistance.

Identifiers

PMID27375902
PMCPMC4916310
OpenAlexW2413489034

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.