ArticlePloS one2017
Feasibility of the TBDx automated digital microscopy system for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of a convolutional neural network for direct detection of acid-fast bacilli from clinical specimens.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering and Its Influence on Healthcare Structure: Current and Future Prospects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Retrospective validation of MetaSystems' deep-learning-based digital microscopy platform with assistance compared to manual fluorescence microscopy for detection of mycobacteria.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of MetaSystems Automated Fluorescent Microscopy System for the Machine-Assisted Detection of Acid-Fast Bacilli in Clinical Samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Article
- Use of Digital Technology to Enhance Tuberculosis Control: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproved and affordable diagnostic or triage tests are urgently needed at the microscopy centre level. Automated digital microscopy has the potential to overcome issues related to conventional microscopy, including training time requirement and inconsistencies in results interpretation.
methodsFor this blinded prospective study, sputum samples were collected from adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis in Lima, Peru and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. TBDx performance was evaluated as a stand-alone and as a triage test against conventional microscopy and Xpert, with culture as the reference standard. Xpert was used to confirm positive cases.
findingsA total of 613 subjects were enrolled between October 2014 and March 2015, with 539 included in the final analysis. The sensitivity of TBDx was 62·2% (95% CI 56·6-67·4) and specificity was 90·7% (95% CI 85·9-94·2) compared to culture. The algorithm assessing TBDx as a triage test achieved a specificity of 100% while maintaining sensitivity.
interpretationWhile the diagnostic performance of TBDx did not reach the levels obtained by experienced microscopists in reference laboratories, it is conceivable that it would exceed the performance of less experienced microscopists. In the absence of highly sensitive and specific molecular tests at the microscopy centre level, TBDx in a triage-testing algorithm would optimize specificity and limit overall cost without compromising the number of patients receiving up-front drug susceptibility testing for rifampicin. However, the algorithm would miss over one third of patients compared to Xpert alone.
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.