ReviewThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
GenoType
Review in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Xpert MTB/XDR for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- iFIND INH/FQ: a LC-aNAAT assay for rapid simultaneous detection of isoniazid and fluoroquinolone resistance inMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of LiquidArray MTB-XDR VER 1.0 for the Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex, Fluoroquinolone, Amikacin, Ethambutol, and Linezolid Susceptibility.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- Identification and quantification ofJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of direct drug susceptibility testing of second-line antitubercular drugs.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Targeted next-generation sequencing ofEmerging microbes & infections · 2024Article
- Cavitary Pulmonary Tuberculosis in an Infant.Cureus · 2024Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of LiquidArray MTB-XDR VER1.0 for the detection ofResearch square · 2024Article
- Impacts of MDR/XDR-TB on the global tuberculosis epidemic: Challenges and opportunities.Current research in microbial sciences · 2024Review
- Rapid Diagnosis of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis-Opportunities and Challenges.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Establishing proof of concept for utility of TrueprepThe international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2023Article
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra on contaminated liquid cultures for tuberculosis and rifampicin-resistance detection: a diagnostic accuracy evaluation.The Lancet. Microbe · 2023Article
- To Test or Not? Xpert MTB/RIF as an Alternative to Smear Microscopy to Guide Line Probe Assay Testing for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Non-actionable Results, Accuracy, and Effect of First- and Second-line Line Probe Assays for Diagnosing Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis, Including on Smear-Negative Specimens, in a High-Volume Laboratory.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
- Drug Resistance in Tuberculous Lymphadenitis: Molecular Characterization.Tuberculosis research and treatment · 2023Article
- Combating the menace of antimicrobial resistance in Africa: a review on stewardship, surveillance and diagnostic strategies.Biological procedures online · 2022Review
- In silico evaluation of WHO-endorsed molecular methods to detect drug resistant tuberculosis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Clinical Evaluation of a Line-Probe Assay for Tuberculosis Detection and Drug-Resistance Prediction in Namibia.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Frequent Suboptimal Thermocycler Ramp Rate Usage Negatively Impacts GenoType MTBDRsl VER 2.0 Performance for Second-Line Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Diagnosis.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2022Article
- Molecular characterisation of second-line drug resistance among drug resistant tuberculosis patients tested in Uganda: a two and a half-year's review.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenotype® MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is a rapid DNA-based test for detecting specific mutations associated with resistance to fluoroquinolones and second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs) in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. MTBDRsl version 2.0 (released in 2015) identifies the mutations detected by version 1.0, as well as additional mutations. The test may be performed on a culture isolate or a patient specimen, which eliminates delays associated with culture. Version 1.0 requires a smear-positive specimen, while version 2.0 may use a smear-positive or -negative specimen. We performed this updated review as part of a World Health Organization process to develop updated guidelines for using MTBDRsl.
objectivesTo assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for: 1. fluoroquinolone resistance, 2. SLID resistance, and 3. extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, indirectly on a M. tuberculosis isolate grown from culture or directly on a patient specimen. Participants were people with rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. The role of MTBDRsl would be as the initial test, replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), for detecting second-line drug resistance. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the following databases without language restrictions up to 21 September 2015: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; Embase OVID; Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and BIOSIS Previews (all three from Web of Science); LILACS; and SCOPUS; registers for ongoing trials; and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. We reviewed references from included studies and contacted specialists in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional and case-control studies that determined MTBDRsl accuracy against a defined reference standard (culture-based DST, genetic sequencing, or both). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We synthesized data for versions 1.0 and 2.0 separately. We estimated MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity for fluoroquinolone resistance, SLID resistance, and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis when the test was performed indirectly or directly (smear-positive specimen for version 1.0, smear-positive or -negative specimen for version 2.0). We explored the influence on accuracy estimates of individual drugs within a drug class and of different reference standards. We performed most analyses using a bivariate random-effects model with culture-based DST as reference standard. MAIN
resultsWe included 27 studies. Twenty-six studies evaluated version 1.0, and one study version 2.0. Of 26 studies stating specimen country origin, 15 studies (58%) evaluated patients from low- or middle-income countries. Overall, we considered the studies to be of high methodological quality. However, only three studies (11%) had low risk of bias for the reference standard; these studies used World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended critical concentrations for all drugs in the culture-based DST reference standard. MTBDRsl version 1.0 Fluoroquinolone resistance: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 85.6% (79.2% to 90.4%) and 98.5% (95.7% to 99.5%), (19 studies, 2223 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86.2% (74.6% to 93.0%) and 98.6% (96.9% to 99.4%), (nine studies, 1771 participants, moderate quality evidence). SLID resistance: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity were 76.5% (63.3% to 86.0%) and 99.1% (97.3% to 99.7%), (16 studies, 1921 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87.0% (38.1% to 98.6%) and 99.5% (93.6% to 100.0%), (eight studies, 1639 participants, low quality evidence). Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.9% (42.9% to 88.8%) and 98.8% (96.1% to 99.6%), (eight studies, 880 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (38.8% to 89.0%) and 99.4% (95.0% to 99.3%), (six studies, 1420 participants, low quality evidence).Similar to the original Cochrane review, we found no evidence of a significant difference in MTBDRsl version 1.0 accuracy between indirect and direct testing for fluoroquinolone resistance, SLID resistance, and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. MTBDRsl version 2.0 Fluoroquinolone resistance: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 97% (83% to 100%) and 98% (93% to 100%), smear-positive specimen; 80% (28% to 99%) and 100% (40% to 100%), smear-negative specimen. SLID resistance: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 89% (72% to 98%) and 90% (84% to 95%), smear-positive specimen; 80% (28% to 99%) and 100% (40% to 100%), smear-negative specimen. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 79% (49% to 95%) and 97% (93% to 99%), smear-positive specimen; 50% (1% to 99%) and 100% (59% to 100%), smear-negative specimen.We had insufficient data to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity of version 2.0 (smear-positive and -negative specimens) or to compare accuracy of the two versions.A limitation was that most included studies did not consistently use the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended concentrations for drugs in the culture-based DST reference standard. AUTHORS'
conclusionsIn people with rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, MTBDRsl performed on a culture isolate or smear-positive specimen may be useful in detecting second-line drug resistance. MTBDRsl (smear-positive specimen) correctly classified around six in seven people as having fluoroquinolone or SLID resistance, although the sensitivity estimates for SLID resistance varied. The test rarely gave a positive result for people without drug resistance. However, when second-line drug resistance is not detected (MTBDRsl result is negative), conventional DST can still be used to evaluate patients for resistance to the fluoroquinolones or SLIDs.We recommend that future work evaluate MTBDRsl version 2.0, in particular on smear-negative specimens and in different settings to account for different resistance-causing mutations that may vary by strain. Researchers should also consider incorporating WHO-recommended critical concentrations into their culture-based reference standards.
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.