ArticlePloS one2017
Comparison between the diagnostic validities of Xpert MTB/RIF and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculous pericarditis using pericardial tissue.
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 18 papers, 4 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of Xpert in tuberculosis diagnosis based on various specimens: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for tuberculous pericarditis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Diagnostic test accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous pericarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.F1000Research · 2020Pooled it
- Targeted nanopore sequencing using clinical specimens for the rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Serosal membrane tuberculosis in Iran: A comprehensive review of evidences.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2023Review
- Clinical Value of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing Using Spinal Tissue in the Rapid Diagnosis of Spinal Tuberculosis.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Clinical Application of theInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Application ofInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Mycobacterium chelonae-related peritoneal dialysis peritonitis: a case report and its potential complications.International urology and nephrology · 2022Article
- Tuberculous Pericarditis-Own Experiences and Recent Recommendations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Role of Core Needle Biopsy Pathology Combined with Molecular Tests in the Diagnosis of Lymph Node Tuberculosis.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and CapitalBioInfection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of the CapitalBio Mycobacterium real-time polymerase chain reaction detection test and Xpert MTB/RIF in smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Diagnostic values of Xpert MTB/RIF, T-SPOT.TB and adenosine deaminase for HIV-negative tuberculous pericarditis in a high burden setting: a prospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2020Observational
- Diagnosis and Management of Tuberculous Pericarditis: What Is New?Current cardiology reports · 2020Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Interleukin-27 in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluids for Pulmonary Tuberculosis.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous pericarditis (TBP) using pericardial tissues.
methodsThe study involved 30 patients admitted with suspected TBP from January-December 2016; three patients were later excluded. The interferon-γ release assay (T-SPOT.TB) and the Xpert MTB/RIF test were performed using peripheral blood and pericardial tissues, respectively. TBP was confirmed using pericardial histopathology and a composite reference standard (CRS). We analyzed the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value (PV), likelihood ratio (LR), and area under curve (AUC) of both assays.
resultsFourteen patients were confirmed as TBP, 10 as non-TBP, and 3 as probable TBP. The sensitivity, specificity, positive PV (PPV), negative PV (NPV), PLR, NLR, and AUC (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay were 78.6% (49.2-95.3%) and 70.6% (44.0-89.7%); 92.3% (64.0-99.8%) and 100% (69.2-100%); 91.7% (61.5-99.8%) and 100% (73.5-100%); 80.0% (51.9-95.7%) and 66.7% (38.4-88.2%); 10.21 (1.52-68.49) and the PLR value was undefined with CRS as the reference; 0.23 (0.08-0.64) and 0.29(0.14-0.61); and 0.854 (0.666-0.959) and 0.853 (0.664-0.959), against histopathology and CRS, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, PLR, NLR, and AUC values (95% CI) of T-SPOT.TB were 92.9% (66.1-99.8%) and 94.1% (71.3-99.9%); 15.4% (1.9-45.5%) and 20.0% (2.5-55.6%); 54.2% (32.8-74.5%) and 66.7% (44.7-84.4%); 66.7% (9.4-99.2%) and 66.7% (9.4-99.2%); 1.10 (0.83-1.44) and 1.18 (0.84-1.6); 0.46 (0.05-4.53) and 0.29 (0.03-2.85); and 0.541(0.340-0.733) and 0.571(0.367-0.758), against histopathology and CRS, respectively. The differences in sensitivity, PPV, and AUC of Xpert MTB/RIF and T-SPOT.TB were not statistically significant (P > 0.05), compared to those of histopathology and CRS. However, the differences in specificity and NPV of the two assays were significant (P < 0.05), compared to those of histopathology and CRS.
conclusionsXpert MTB/RIF test is a valid diagnostic technique for TBP with higher sensitivity and specificity than T-SPOT.TB.
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.