ArticleScientific reports2017
Evaluation of the MTBDRplus 2.0 assay for the detection of multidrug resistance among persons with presumptive pulmonary TB in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Tuberculosis Diagnosis: Current, Ongoing, and Future Approaches.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Increased Expression of IL-10 in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Correlates with Negative Interferon-γ Release Assay Results in Culture-Confirmed Tuberculosis Patients.Infection and drug resistance · 2021Article
- Analysis of drug resistance and mutation profiles inThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- GeneXpert of stool versus gastric lavage fluid for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in severely ill adults.Infection · 2019Article
- Rapid Diagnosis Of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Impacts Expenditures Prior To Appropriate Treatment: A Performance And Diagnostic Cost Analysis.Infection and drug resistance · 2019Article
- Comparison of Quantamatrix Multiplexed Assay Platform and GenoType MTBDR Assay Using Smear-Positive Sputum Specimens From Patients With Multidrug- Resistant/Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in South Korea.Frontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- Additional benefits of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis patients with prior exposure to fluoroquinolones.Infection and drug resistance · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have conducted a multicenter study of the diagnostic accuracy of the MTBDRplus 2.0 assay in compared with conventional and molecular reference standard in four tuberculosis (TB)-specialized hospitals of China. A total of 5038 patients were enrolled in this study. The overall sensitivity of the assay for the diagnosis of TB was 92.7% [1723/1858, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 91.5-93.9]. In smear-positive/culture-positive cases the sensitivity was 97.7% (995/1018, 95% CI: 96.6-98.6), whereas in smear-negative/culture-positive cases it was 86.7% (728/840, 95% CI: 84.2-88.9). The agreement rate between MTBDRplus 2.0 and Xpert MTB/RIF was 97.7% (1015/1039, 95% CI: 96.6-98.5) for smear-positive cases and 97.0% (3682/3794, 95% CI: 96.5-97.6) for smear-negative cases. As compared with phenotypic drug susceptibility testing, the MTBDRplus 2.0 correctly identified 298 of 315 patients (94.6%, 95% CI: 91.5-96.8) with rifampicin-resistance. As noted previously, isoniazid resistance is associated with many different mutations and consequently the sensitivity compared to phenotypic testing was lower (81.0%, 95% CI: 76.8-84.7). In conclusion, this assay is a rapid, accurate test in terms of increased sensitivity for detecting smear-negative TB patients, as well as an alternative for detecting both RIF and INH resistance in persons with presumptive TB, whereas the absence of a mutation in the specimens must be interpreted cautiously.
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.