ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India2018
Evaluation of manual Mycobacterium growth indicator tube for isolation and susceptibility testing of
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of TB/HIV Co-Infection and Patterns of Multidrug-Resistance Tuberculosis in the Northwest Amhara, Ethiopia.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Urogenital tuberculosis - epidemiology, pathogenesis and clinical features.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Review
- Man and Microbe: Fraternizing with the frenemy.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2019Article
- Tuberculosis diagnosis in resource limited settings.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManual Mycobacterium growth indicator tube (MGIT) was evaluated for isolation and drug susceptibility testing (DST) of
methods1018 consecutive clinical specimens were processed using manual MGIT and conventional Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) culture. Results obtained for culture positivity were analyzed taking combined reference of positivity by either solid or liquid culture. All positive cultures were identified and DST to first line drugs was performed by manual MGIT and 1% proportional method on LJ media. Performance of manual MGIT for DST was compared to conventional DST on LJ media.
resultOf the total 220 culture positive samples 93.9% were isolated in MGIT while 75.7% in LJ taking combined reference of positivity by either solid or liquid culture. Turn around time for isolation of MTB was significantly less for MGIT as compared to LJ. There was good agreement between manual MGIT and 1% proportional method on LJ media for DST to first line drugs. Turnaround time from inoculation to DST results for smear positive and smear negative cases using manual MGIT was 20.2 and 30.1 days respectively. The total cost for isolation, identification and DST in manual MGIT for smear positive and smear negative cases was INR 2350 and INR 2700 respectively.
conclusionIt is feasible to implement manual MGIT in low to medium volume laboratory that already has experience with culture provided adequate biosafety measures and appropriate training of laboratory staff are taken care of.
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.