Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28612135›Full record

ArticleCurrent microbiology2017

Comparative Study of GeneXpert MTB/RIF Assay and Multiplex PCR Assay for Direct Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Suspected Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients.

Anil Kumar Sah, Bishnu Joshi, Dhruba Kumar Khadka, Birendra Prasad Gupta, Anurag Adhikari, Subodh Kant Singh, Ganesh Rai, Geeta Shrestha Vaidya, Reema Rajbhandari, Basant Pant and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies for Peritoneal Tuberculosis: A Review.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2019
    Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anil Kumar SahShi-Gan Int'l College of Science and Technology, Kathmandu, Nepal. anilshah4in@gmail.com.
Bishnu JoshiAnnapurna Research Center, Maitighar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Dhruba Kumar KhadkaNational Tuberculosis Centre, Thimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal.
Birendra Prasad GuptaCentral Department of Biotechnology, Tribhuvan University, Kritipur, Nepal.
Anurag AdhikariKathmandu Research Institute for Biological Sciences, Mahalaxmi-19, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Subodh Kant SinghAnnapurna Research Center, Maitighar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Ganesh RaiShi-Gan Int'l College of Science and Technology, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Geeta Shrestha VaidyaShi-Gan Int'l College of Science and Technology, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Reema RajbhandariAnnapurna Research Center, Maitighar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Basant PantAnnapurna Research Center, Maitighar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Shiba Kumar RaiShi-Gan Int'l College of Science and Technology, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Annapurna Neurological Institute and Allied Sciences · NPBhaktapur Cancer Hospital · NPTribhuvan University · NP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is one of the major infectious diseases in developing countries. The objective of this study was to compare rapid diagnostics technique, GeneXpert MTB/RIF (GeneXpert) and Multiplex PCR assay (MPCR) targeting IS6110 segment and mpb64 gene for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in suspected PTB patients. A cross sectional study was carried among 105 sputum samples from suspected PTB patients to evaluate GeneXpert and Multiplex PCR who visited National Tuberculosis Center, Nepal. The patient's sputum samples were used directly for the GeneXpert whereas DNA extraction by CTAB method was followed to process the sample for MPCR. The sensitivity and specificity of GeneXpert and MPCR in smear positive cases was 78.6, 33.3, and 100.0%, 66.7%, respectively (P = 0.125). However, in smear negative cases sensitivity and specificity of both methods exhibited 90.9, 95.2, and 100.0%, 100.0% respectively (P = 0.625). Finally, the sensitivity and specificity of GeneXpert and MPCR were 82.9, 95.3 and 100.0%, 98.5% respectively, (P = 0.549) in pulmonary cases. Comparatively, we observed higher sensitivity and specificity for MPCR than GeneXpert for both smear positive and negative samples. Thus, we recommend MPCR alongside GeneXpert for the better diagnostic accuracy of PTB in a resource-limited country where tuberculosis is endemic.

Indexed as

Antigens, BacterialBacterial ProteinsCross-Sectional StudiesDNA Transposable ElementsHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionMycobacterium tuberculosisNepalSensitivity and SpecificitySputumTuberculosis, PulmonaryAntigens, BacterialBacterial ProteinsDNA Transposable ElementsMPB64 protein, Mycobacterium

Identifiers

PMID28612135
OpenAlexW2624807163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.