ArticlePloS one2017
Comparative accuracy of the REBA MTB MDR and Hain MTBDRplus line probe assays for the detection of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: A multicenter, non-inferiority study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite recent diagnostic advances, the majority of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) cases remain undiagnosed. Line probes assays (LiPAs) hold great promise to curb the spread of MDR-TB as they can rapidly detect MDR-TB even when laboratory infrastructure is limited, yet few of these assays are currently widely available or supported by World Health Organization (WHO) policy.
methodsThe aim of this prospective, blinded, non-inferiority study was to compare the performance of YD Diagnostics REBA MTB MDR LiPA (YD) to the WHO-endorsed Hain MTBDRplus V1 LiPA (Hain V1) for the detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance. In phase 1, YD and Hain V1 diagnostic performance was assessed with selected culture isolates and results were compared to phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) results and targeted sequencing data. In phase 2, both assays were tested on processed sputum samples and results were compared to phenotypic DST results.
resultsIn phase 1, YD did not achieve non-inferiority to Hain V1. For isoniazid resistance detection, Hain V1 had a sensitivity of 89% (95%CI 83.8-93%) and specificity of 99.4% (95%CI 96.9-100%). While YD had a similar sensitivity of 92% (95%CI 87.3-95.4%), the specificity was inferior at 92.6% (95%CI 87.6-96%). For rifampicin resistance detection, Hain V1 had a sensitivity of 90.2% (95%CI 84.8-94.2%) and specificity of 98.5% (95%CI 95.7-99.7%) while YD had an inferior sensitivity of 72.4% (95%CI 65.1-78.9%) and a comparable specificity of 98% (95%CI 95-99.5%). Similar results were observed in phase 2. For MDR-TB detection, the sensitivity and specificity of Hain V1 was 93.4% (95%CI 88.2-96.2%) and 96.2% (95%CI 88.2-96.8%), respectively, compared to 75.7% (95%CI 68-82.2%) and 92% (95%CI 88.2-94.9%) for YD.
conclusionsYD did not achieve non-inferiority with Hain V1. Further improvements and repeat evaluation of YD is necessary prior to recommending its use for clinical settings.
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.