Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29912907›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Evaluation of the GeneXpert MTB/RIF in patients with presumptive tuberculous meningitis.

Tatiana Metcalf, Jaime Soria, Silvia M Montano, Eduardo Ticona, Carlton A Evans, Luz Huaroto, Matthew Kasper, Eric S Ramos, Nicanor Mori, Podjanee Jittamala and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Tatiana MetcalfDepartment of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-1517-6725
Jaime SoriaNorthern Pacific Fogarty Global Health Fellowship Program, National Institutes of Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Silvia M MontanoUS Naval Medical Research Unit No. 6, Callao, Peru.
Eduardo TiconaDepartment of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo, Lima, Peru.
Carlton A EvansSection of Infectious Diseases & Immunity, Imperial College London, and Wellcome Trust Imperial College Centre for Global Health Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6873-5447
Luz HuarotoDepartment of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo, Lima, Peru.
Matthew KasperUS Naval Medical Research Unit No. 6, Callao, Peru.
Eric S RamosInnovation for Health & Development (IFHAD), Laboratory of Research and Development, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru.
Nicanor MoriNorthern Pacific Fogarty Global Health Fellowship Program, National Institutes of Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Podjanee JittamalaDepartment of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kesinee ChotivanichDepartment of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Irwin F ChavezDepartment of Tropical Hygiene (Biomedical and Health Informatics), Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pratap SinghasivanonDepartment of Tropical Hygiene (Biomedical and Health Informatics), Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sasithon PukrittayakameeDepartment of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Joseph R ZuntDepartment of Neurology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Mahidol University · THNational Institutes of Health · USHospital Nacional Dos de Mayo · PEUnited States Naval Medical Research Unit SOUTH · PEUniversidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia · PEUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K007467/1Wellcome Trust 057434/Z/99/ZWellcome Trust 070005/Z/02/ZWellcome Trust 078340/Z/05/ZWellcome Trust 105788/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 201251/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeningitis caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. We evaluated the performance of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing with the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay versus traditional approaches for diagnosing tuberculosis meningitis (TBM).

methodsPatients were adults (n = 37) presenting with suspected TBM to the Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo, Lima, Peru, during 12 months until 1st January 2015. Each participant had a single CSF specimen that was divided into aliquots that were concurrently tested for M. tuberculosis using GeneXpert, Ziehl-Neelsen smear and culture on solid and liquid media. Drug susceptibility testing used Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT 960) and the proportions method.

results81% (30/37) of patients received a final clinical diagnosis of TBM, of whom 63% (19/30, 95% confidence intervals, CI: 44-80%) were HIV-positive. 22% (8/37, 95%CI: 9.8-38%), of patients had definite TBM. Because definite TBM was defined by positivity in any laboratory test, all laboratory tests had 100% specificity. Considering the 30 patients who had a clinical diagnosis of TBM: diagnostic sensitivity was 23% (7/30, 95%CI: 9.9-42%) for GeneXpert and was the same for all culture results combined; considerably greater than 7% (2/30, 95%CI: 0.82-22%) for microscopy; whereas all laboratory tests had poor negative predictive values (20-23%). Considering only the 8 patients with definite TBM: diagnostic sensitivity was 88% (7/8, 95%CI: 47-100%) for GeneXpert; 75% (6/8, 95%CI: 35-97%) for MGIT culture or LJ culture; 50% (4/8, 95%CI 16-84) for Ogawa culture and 25% (2/8, 95%CI: 3.2-65%) for microscopy. GeneXpert and microscopy provided same-day results, whereas culture took 20-56 days. GeneXpert provided same-day rifampicin-susceptibility results, whereas culture-based testing took 32-71 days. 38% (3/8, 95%CI: 8.5-76%) of patients with definite TBM with data had evidence of drug-resistant TB, but 73% (22/30) of all clinically diagnosed TBM (definite, probable, and possible TBM) had no drug-susceptibility results available.

conclusionsCompared with traditional culture-based methods of CSF testing, GeneXpert had similar yield and faster results for both the detection of M. tuberculosis and drug-susceptibility testing. Including use of the GeneXpert has the capacity to improve the diagnosis of TBM cases.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAntitubercular AgentsAutoanalysisCerebrospinal FluidClinical Laboratory TechniquesDrug Resistance, BacterialFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedMycobacterium tuberculosisReproducibility of ResultsRifampinSensitivity and SpecificityAntitubercular AgentsRifampin

Identifiers

PMID29912907
PMCPMC6005529
OpenAlexW2808991826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.