Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29752010›Full record

ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]

Comparison of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay and LED-FM microscopy for the diagnosis of extra pulmonary tuberculosis in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Anwar Sheed Khan, Sajid Ali, Muhammad Tahir Khan, Sajjad Ahmed, Yasir Khattak, Abduljabbar, Muhammad Irfan, Wasim Sajjad

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Need for caution when interpreting XpertThe international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2021
    Article
  14. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Anwar Sheed KhanKhyber Medical University Peshawar, Peshawar, Pakistan. Electronic address: Anwar786kp@hotmail.com.
Sajid AliProvincial TB Reference Laboratory, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Muhammad Tahir KhanCapital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sajjad AhmedKhyber Medical University Peshawar, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Yasir KhattakUniversity of Peshawar, Centre for Biotechnology and Microbiology, Peshawar, Pakistan.
AbduljabbarUniversity of Haripur, Department of Medical Lab Technology, Haripur, Pakistan.
Muhammad IrfanSarhad University of Science and Information Technology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Wasim SajjadDepartment of Biogenetics, National University of Medical Sciences, Rawalpindi, Punjab, Pakistan.
Khyber Medical University · PKCapital University of Science and Technology · PKNational University of Medical Sciences · PKSarhad University of Science and Information Technology · PKUniversity of Haripur · PKUniversity of Peshawar · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

GeneXpert is one of the recent technological instruments used to diagnose tuberculosis in a short span of time. In this study, the performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) was compared with light-emitting diode Fluorescent Microscopy (LED-FM) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. A total of 737 EPTB samples were collected from tuberculosis (TB) suspected patients. Out of these samples, male to female ratio was 53% (n=390) to 47% (n=347) respectively. The sensitivity and specificity was 73% and 100% for GeneXpert, while 40% and 100% for LED-FM microscopy. This shows that the sensitivity of GeneXpert is 40-50%, higher than LED-FM microscopy. GeneXpert also detected low number of bacilli as compared to LED-FM microscopy.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMaleMicroscopyMiddle AgedMycobacterium tuberculosisPakistanPolymerase Chain ReactionReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionTuberculosis, PulmonaryGeneXpertLED-FM microscopySensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID29752010
PMCPMC6175715
OpenAlexW2802537955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.