Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27760181›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Discordance between MTB/RIF and Real-Time Tuberculosis-Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay in Bronchial Washing Specimen and Its Clinical Implications.

Yong Suk Jo, Ju-Hee Park, Jung Kyu Lee, Eun Young Heo, Hee Soon Chung, Deog Kyeom Kim

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 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yong Suk JoDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ju-Hee ParkDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jung Kyu LeeDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun Young HeoDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hee Soon ChungDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Deog Kyeom KimDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9379-8098
Seoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevalence and clinical implications of discordance between Xpert MTB/RIF assays and the AdvanSure TB/NTM real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for bronchial washing specimens have not been studied in pulmonary TB (PTB) patients. The discordant proportion and its clinical impact were evaluated in 320 patients from the bronchoscopy registry whose bronchial washing specimens were tested simultaneously with Xpert MTB/RIF and the TB/NTM PCR assay for three years, and the accuracy of the assays, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), were studied. The clinical risk factors for discordance and false positivity of assays were also studied. Among 130 patients who were clinically diagnosed with PTB, 64 patients showed positive acid-fast bacilli culture results, 56 patients showed positive results in molecular methods and clinician diagnosed PTB without results of microbiology in 10 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 80.0%, 98.95%, 98.1%, and 87.9%, respectively, for Xpert MTB/RIF and 81.5%, 92.6%, 88.3%, and 88.0%, respectively, for TB/NTM PCR. The discordant proportion was 16.9% and was higher in culture-negative PTB compared to culture-confirmed PTB (24.3% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.024). However, there were no significant differences in the clinical characteristics, regardless of the discordance. The diagnostic yield increased with an additional assay (7.7% for Xpert MTB/RIF and 9.2% for TB/NTM PCR). False positivity was less common in patients tested with Xpert MTB/RIF (1.05% vs. 7.37%, p = 0.0035). No host-related risk factor for false positivity was identified. The Xpert MTB/RIF and TB/NTM PCR assay in bronchial washing specimens can improve the diagnostic yields for PTB, although there were considerable discordant results without any patient-related risk factors.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBacteriological TechniquesBronchoalveolar LavageBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidEarly DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMycobacterium tuberculosisReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificitySputumTuberculosis, Pulmonary

Identifiers

PMID27760181
PMCPMC5070776
OpenAlexW2533404963

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.