ArticleBMC infectious diseases2016
Performance of the G4 Xpert
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 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
- Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of rifampicin resistance in different regions: a meta-analysis.BMC microbiology · 2019Pooled it
- XpertThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Early cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel rapid diagnostic test for tuberculosis in rural Philippine settings.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Performances and usefulness of Xpert MTB/RIF assay in low-incidence settings: not that bad?European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
- Impact of a rapid molecular test for positive blood cultures from neonatal intensive care patients on clinical management: a retrospective audit.Irish journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Evaluating Tuberculosis Screening Tools: A Decade-Long Network Meta-Analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity with Bibliometric Insights.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Xpert
methodsAn analytical study was performed to assess Xpert detection of mutations associated with rifampin resistance in rifampin-susceptible and -resistant isolates. A clinical study was performed in which specimens from US and non-US persons suspected of tuberculosis (TB) were tested to determine Xpert performance characteristics. All specimens underwent smear microscopy, mycobacterial culture, conventional drug-susceptibility testing and Xpert testing; DNA from isolates with discordant rifampin resistance results was sequenced.
resultsAmong 191 laboratory-prepared isolates in the analytical study, Xpert sensitivity for detection of rifampin resistance associated mutations was 97.7% and specificity was 90.8%, which increased to 99.0% after DNA sequencing analysis of the discordant samples. Of the 1,096 subjects in the four clinical studies, 49% were from the US. Overall, Xpert detected MTBc in 439 of 468 culture-positive specimens for a sensitivity of 93.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.2%-95.7%) and did not detect MTBc in 620 of 628 culture-negative specimens for a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI: 97.5%-99.4%). Sensitivity was 99.7% among smear-positive cases, and 76.1% among smear-negative cases. Non-determinate MTBc detection and false-positive RIF resistance results were low (1.2 and 0.9%, respectively).
conclusionsThe updated Xpert assay retained the high sensitivity and specificity of the previous assay versions and demonstrated low rates of non-determinate and RIF resistance false positive results.
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.