ArticlePLoS medicine2017
Estimated clinical impact of the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra cartridge for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: A modeling study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 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
- Utility of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and digital chest radiography for the diagnosis and treatment of TB in people living with HIV: a randomised controlled trial (XACT-TB).Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2023Trial
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus mycobacterial growth indicator tube liquid culture for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in symptomatic adults: a diagnostic accuracy study.The Lancet. Microbe · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Effects of sputum bacillary load and age on GeneXpert and traditional methods in pulmonary tuberculosis: a 4-year retrospective comparative study.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- The Efficiency of TB LAM Antigen Test to Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Test for the Diagnosis of Tuberculous Pericarditis Using Pericardial Fluid Samples.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Yield of Facility-based Targeted Universal Testing for Tuberculosis With Xpert and Mycobacterial Culture in High-Risk Groups Attending Primary Care Facilities in South Africa.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Compared with Predecessor Test, Xpert MTB/RIF, in a Low TB Incidence Setting: a Retrospective Service Evaluation.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Performance of XpertThe international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2022Article
- Symptom Screens Are Not Sufficient: The Fight Against Tuberculosis Needs Better Weapons.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- The Spectrum of Tuberculosis Disease in an Urban Ugandan Community and Its Health Facilities.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- The transition to Xpert MTB/RIF ultra: diagnostic accuracy for pulmonary tuberculosis in Kampala, Uganda.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Article
- Revamping of Chronic Respiratory Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- Serum sCD14, PGLYRP2 and FGA as potential biomarkers for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis based on data-independent acquisition and targeted proteomics.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for rapid diagnosis of pulmonary and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis in an Italian center.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay offers rapid and accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) but still suffers from imperfect sensitivity. The newer Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra cartridge has shown improved sensitivity in recent field trials, but at the expense of reduced specificity. The clinical implications of switching from the existing Xpert cartridge to the Xpert Ultra cartridge in different populations remain uncertain. METHODS AND
findingsWe developed a Markov microsimulation model of hypothetical cohorts of 100,000 individuals undergoing diagnostic sputum evaluation with Xpert for suspected pulmonary TB, in each of 3 emblematic settings: an HIV clinic in South Africa, a public TB center in India, and an adult primary care setting in China. In each setting, we used existing data to project likely diagnostic results, treatment decisions, and ultimate clinical outcomes, assuming use of the standard Xpert versus Xpert Ultra cartridge. Our primary outcomes were the projected number of additional unnecessary treatments generated, the projected number of TB deaths averted, and the projected number of unnecessary treatments generated per TB death averted, if standard Xpert were switched to Xpert Ultra. We also simulated alternative approaches to interpreting positive results of the Ultra cartridge's semi-quantitative trace call. Extensive sensitivity and uncertainty analyses were performed to evaluate the drivers and generalizability of projected results. In the Indian TB center setting, replacing the standard Xpert cartridge with the Xpert Ultra cartridge was projected to avert 0.5 TB deaths (95% uncertainty range [UR]: 0, 1.3) and generate 18 unnecessary treatments (95% UR: 10, 29) per 1,000 individuals evaluated-resulting in a median ratio of 38 incremental unnecessary treatments added by Ultra per incremental death averted by Ultra compared to outcomes using standard Xpert (95% UR: 12, indefinite upper bound). In the South African HIV care setting-where TB mortality rates are higher and Ultra's improved sensitivity has greater absolute benefit-this ratio improved to 7 unnecessary treatments per TB death averted (95% UR: 2, 43). By contrast, in the Chinese primary care setting, this ratio was much less favorable, at 372 unnecessary treatments per TB death averted (95% UR: 75, indefinite upper bound), although the projected number of unnecessary treatments using Xpert Ultra was lower (with a possibility of no increased overtreatment) when using specificity data only from lower-burden settings. Alternative interpretations of the trace call had little effect on these ratios. Limitations include uncertainty in key parameters (including the clinical implications of false-negative results), the exclusion of transmission effects, and restriction of this analysis to adult pulmonary TB.
conclusionsSwitching from the standard Xpert cartridge to the Xpert Ultra cartridge for diagnosis of adult pulmonary TB may have different consequences in different clinical settings. In settings with high TB and HIV prevalence, Xpert Ultra is likely to offer considerable mortality benefit, whereas in lower-prevalence settings, Xpert Ultra will likely result in considerable overtreatment unless the possibility of higher specificity of Ultra in lower-prevalence settings in confirmed. The ideal use of the Ultra cartridge may therefore involve a more nuanced, setting-specific approach to implementation, with priority given to populations in which the anticipated prevalence of TB (and HIV) is the highest.
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.