Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29791488›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Comparison of the validity of smear and culture conversion as a prognostic marker of treatment outcome in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Kefyalew Addis Alene, Kerri Viney, Hengzhong Yi, Emma S McBryde, Kunyun Yang, Liqiong Bai, Darren J Gray, Zuhui Xu, Archie C A Clements

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Primary bedaquiline resistance in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors.

Kefyalew Addis AleneResearch School of Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1904-4682
Kerri VineyResearch School of Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Hengzhong YiDepartment of MDR-TB, Internal Medicine, Hunan Chest hospital, Changsha city, Hunan Province, China.
Emma S McBrydeAustralian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Kunyun YangDepartment of MDR-TB, Internal Medicine, Hunan Chest hospital, Changsha city, Hunan Province, China.
Liqiong BaiDepartment of Director's Office, Tuberculosis Control Institute of Hunan Province, Changsha city, Hunan Province, China.
Darren J GrayResearch School of Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Zuhui XuDepartment of Tuberculosis Control, Tuberculosis Control Institute of Hunan Province, Changsha city, Hunan Province, China.
Archie C A ClementsResearch School of Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) has conditionally recommended the use of sputum smear microscopy and culture examination for the monitoring of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment. We aimed to assess and compare the validity of smear and culture conversion at different time points during treatment for MDR-TB, as a prognostic marker for end-of-treatment outcomes.

methodsWe undertook a retrospective observational cohort study using data obtained from Hunan Chest Hospital, China and Gondar University Hospital, Ethiopia. The sensitivity and specificity of culture and sputum smear conversion for predicting treatment outcomes were analysed using a random-effects generalized linear mixed model.

resultsA total of 429 bacteriologically confirmed MDR-TB patients with a culture and smear positive result were included. Overall, 345 (80%) patients had a successful treatment outcome, and 84 (20%) patients had poor treatment outcomes. The sensitivity of smear and culture conversion to predict a successful treatment outcome were: 77.9% and 68.9% at 2 months after starting treatment (difference between tests, p = 0.007); 95.9% and 92.7% at 4 months (p = 0.06); 97.4% and 96.2% at 6 months (p = 0.386); and 99.4% and 98.9% at 12 months (p = 0.412), respectively. The specificity of smear and culture non-conversion to predict a poor treatment outcome were: 41.6% and 60.7% at 2 months (p = 0.012); 23.8% and 48.8% at 4 months (p<0.001); and 20.2% and 42.8% at 6 months (p<0.001); and 15.4% and 32.1% (p<0.001) at 12 months, respectively. The sensitivity of culture and smear conversion increased as the month of conversion increased but at the cost of decreased specificity. The optimum time points after conversion to provide the best prognostic marker of a successful treatment outcome were between two and four months after treatment commencement for smear, and between four and six months for culture. The common optimum time point for smear and culture conversion was four months. At this time point, culture conversion (AUROC curve = 0.71) was significantly better than smear conversion (AUROC curve = 0.6) in predicting successful treatment outcomes (p < 0.001). However, the validity of smear conversion (AUROC curve = 0.7) was equivalent to culture conversion (AUROC curve = 0.71) in predicting treatment outcomes when demographic and clinical factors were included in the model. The positive and negative predictive values for smear conversion were: 57.3% and 65.7% at two months, 55.7% and 85.4% at four months, and 55.0% and 88.6% at six months; and for culture conversions it was: 63.7% and 66.2% at two months, 64.4% and 87.1% at four months, and 62.7% and 91.9% at six months, respectively.

conclusionsThe validity of smear conversion is significantly lower than culture conversion in predicting MDR-TB treatment outcomes. We support the WHO recommendation of using both smear and culture examination rather than smear alone for the monitoring of MDR-TB patients for a better prediction of successful treatment outcomes. The optimum time points to predict a future successful treatment outcome were between two and four months after treatment commencement for sputum smear conversion and between four and six months for culture conversion. The common optimum times for culture and smear conversion together was four months.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBiomarkersCohort StudiesCulture TechniquesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMycobacterium tuberculosisPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSputumBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID29791488
PMCPMC5965863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.