Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27437212›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016

Comparative Study of GeneXpert with ZN Stain and Culture in Samples of Suspected Pulmonary Tuberculosis.

Monika Agrawal, Ashish Bajaj, Vinay Bhatia, Sarjana Dutt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Molecular Characterization of theAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Infection and drug resistance · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Monika AgrawalConsultant Microbiologist, Department of Microbiology, Oncquest Laboratories Limited , New Delhi, India .
Ashish BajajJunior Consultant Microbiologist, Department of Microbiology, Oncquest Laboratories Limited , New Delhi, India .
Vinay BhatiaManager Molecular Biology, Department of Molecular Biology, Oncquest Laboratories Limited , New Delhi, India .
Sarjana DuttDirector, Department of Molecular Biology and R&D, Oncquest Laboratories Limited , New Delhi, India .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTuberculosis remains one of the deadliest communicable diseases. There are number of tests available for the diagnosis of tuberculosis but conventional microscopy has low sensitivity and culture although gold standard, but takes longer time for positivity. On the other side, Nucleic acid amplification techniques due to its rapidity and sensitivity not only help in early diagnosis and management of tuberculosis especially in patients with high clinical suspicion like immunocompromised patients, history of contact with active tuberculosis patient etc., but also curtail the transmission of the disease.

aimTo evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Nucleic acid amplification assay (GeneXpert) using respiratory samples in patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis and compare with AFB smear microscopy (Ziehl Neelsen stain) and Acid Fast Bacilli (AFB) culture. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the respiratory samples of suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (including Bronchoalveolar lavage and sputum) of 170 patients from Jan 2015 to Nov 2015 for ZN stain, culture and GeneXpert (Xpert(®) MTB/Rif assay). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of GeneXpert and ZN microscopy were calculated using Liquid culture of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as gold standard.

resultsA total of 170 patient samples were evaluated in final analysis. Of these, 14 samples were positive by all three methods used in our study. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of GeneXpert were 86.8%, 93.1%, 78.5% and 96% respectively and for BAL sample, 81.4%, 93.4%, 73.3% and 95.7% respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of AFB smear microscopy were 22.2%, % and 78.5% respectively and for BAL sample 22.2% and 100% respectively. For AFB negative samples sensitivity and specificity were 79.1% and 93.1% respectively.

conclusionGeneXpert has a higher sensitivity than AFB smear microscopy in respiratory samples. GeneXpert can be a useful tool for early diagnosis of patients with high clinical suspicion of pulmonary tuberculosis. Positive GeneXpert, but culture negative results should be read cautiously and be well correlated with clinical and treatment history of the patient. The other major advantage of Gene Xpert is that it simultaneously detects Rifampicin resistance and especially beneficial in patient with MDR and HIV associated tuberculosis and should be studied further.

Indexed as

Acid fast bacilliBronchoalveolar lavageSmear microscopySputum

Identifiers

PMID27437212
PMCPMC4948388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.