Trial reportPloS one2017
Diagnostic Accuracy of GeneXpert MTB/RIF Assay in Comparison to Conventional Drug Susceptibility Testing Method for the Diagnosis of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for tuberculosis disease and rifampicin resistance in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Mycobacterium tuberculosis mixed infections and drug resistance in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.African health sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assays for active tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF Assay, MTB Culture and Line Probe Assay for the Detection of MDR Tuberculosis in AFB Smear Negative Specimens.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Risk-prone territories for spreading tuberculosis, temporal trends and their determinants in a high burden city from São Paulo State, Brazil.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Tuberculosis challenges: Resistance, co-infection, diagnosis, and treatment.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2022Review
- Association between body mass index and newly diagnosed drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis in Shandong, China from 2004 to 2019.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- Adoption of evidence-informed guidelines in prescribing protease inhibitors for HIV-Tuberculosis co-infected patients on rifampicin and effects on HIV treatment outcomes in Uganda.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Aptamer-Based Diagnostic Systems for the Rapid Screening of TB at the Point-of-Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The Role of Cartridge-Based Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (CBNAAT), Line Probe Assay (LPA), Liquid Culture, Acid-Fast Bacilli (AFB) Smear and Histopathology in the Diagnosis of Osteoarticular Tuberculosis.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Review
- Temporal trend of tuberculosis incidence and its spatial distribution in Macapá - Amapá.Revista de saude publica · 2021Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Xpert MTB/RIF assay is regarded as a great achievement of modern medicine for the rapid diagnosis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). The main purpose of this study was to determine the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF assay compared to conventional drug susceptibility testing (DST) method for the diagnosis of MDR-TB. A comparative cross sectional study was carried out at German-Nepal Tuberculosis Project, Kathmandu, Nepal, from April 2014 to September 2014. A total of 88 culture positive clinical samples (83 pulmonary and 5 extra-pulmonary) received during the study period were analyzed for detection of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis by both GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay and conventional DST method. McNemar chi square test was used to compare the performance of Xpert with that of DST method. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Of total 88 culture positive samples, one was reported as invalid while 2 were found to contain nontuberculous Mycobacteria (NTM). Among remaining 85 Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture positive samples, 69 were found to be MDR-TB positive by both methods. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay were found to be 98.6%, 100%, 100% and 93.8% respectively. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the diagnostic performance of Xpert and conventional DST method for detection of MDR-TB. GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay was found to be highly sensitive, specific and comparable to gold standard conventional DST method for the diagnosis of MDR-TB.
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.