ArticlePloS one2017
Diagnostic utility of a line probe assay for multidrug resistant-TB in smear-negative 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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differential yield of universal versus selective drug susceptibility testing of patients with tuberculosis in high-burden countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2020Pooled it
- Meta-narrative review of molecular methods for diagnosis and monitoring of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment in adults.International journal of mycobacteriologyPooled it
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of Line Probe Assay on Smear-Negative Samples of Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Cureus · 2024Article
- The performance of Xpert MTB/RIF and MTBDRplus within a Programmatic setting at TB Laboratory in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2024Article
- Utility of line probe assay in detecting drug resistance and the associated mutations in patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.SAGE open medicine · 2022Article
- Comparative Performance of Line Probe Assay (Version 2) and Xpert MTB/RIF Assay for Early Diagnosis of Rifampicin-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2021Article
- 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
- Tuberculosis diagnostics: overcoming ancient challenges with modern solutions.Emerging topics in life sciences · 2020Review
- Article
- Diagnostic Evaluation of Non-Interpretable Results Associated with rpoB Gene in Genotype MTBDRplus Ver 2.0.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2020Article
- Comparison of GeneXpert and line probe assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin-mono resistance at the National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory, Kenya.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Role of Bronchial Washing Gene Xpert in Sputum-Scarce Cases of Suspected Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of Genotype MTBDRplus VER 2.0 in the diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in sputum smear-negative pulmonary TB cases.
methodsA total of 572 Ziehl-Neelsen sputum smear-negative samples were selected and subjected to line probe assay (Genotype MTBDRplus VER 2.0), and culture in mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT-960). Immunochromatographic test was used to confirm the MTB-complex (MTBC) in culture-positive samples and phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing was done using MGIT-960.
resultsThe line probe assay was able to diagnose MTBC in 38.2% (213/558) of specimens after excluding 14 nontuberculous mycobacteria. Sensitivity and specificity of the assay were 68.4% and 89.3% respectively, considering MGIT-960 culture as gold standard after excluding contaminated and invalid results. On comparing with composite reference standard, the assay had 71.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting resistance to rifampicin (RMP) were 100% and 99.24% respectively and for resistance to isoniazid (INH) were 97.62% and 98.55%, respectively.
conclusionGenotype MTBDRplus VER 2.0 is a rapid and precise diagnostic tool for detection of MTB in sputum smear-negative samples. It also facilitates accurate diagnosis of RMP and INH resistance within turn around-time.
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.