ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Evaluation of the performance of two real-time PCR assays for detecting Mycobacterium species.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Molecular Diagnostics of Tuberculosis: What Do We Have, What Do We Need?Pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical value of quantitative PCR in diagnosis of suspected mycobacterial pulmonary infections.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of AdvanSureDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Mycobacterium RealTime Kit Vircell (MRTVircell) Assay for DetectingPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Pathological and immune features of non-tuberculous mycobacteria andFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Significance of Hematological Parameters and Ratios in the Context ofInfection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Description, validation, and review of a decade of experience with a laboratory-developed PCR test for detection ofJournal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2022Article
- Mycobacterium chelonae-related peritoneal dialysis peritonitis: a case report and its potential complications.International urology and nephrology · 2022Article
- GenoType CM DirectJournal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Comparing mRNA expression and protein abundance in MDRBiotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Application value of tissue tuberculosis antigen combined with Xpert MTB/RIF detection in differential diagnoses of intestinal tuberculosis and Crohn's disease.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- PCR-reverse blot hybridization assay in respiratory specimens for rapid detection and differentiation of mycobacteria in HIV-negative population.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- GenSeizer: a Multiplex PCR-Based Targeted Gene Sequencing Platform for Rapid and Accurate Identification of MajorJournal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Cas12a/Guide RNA-Based Platform for Rapid and Accurate Identification of MajorJournal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the performance of two real-time PCR assays for detecting Mycobacterium species.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsRapid discrimination between Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) is critical for patient treatment and to avoid unnecessary expenditure on infection control. Because real-time PCR assays distinguish MTB from NTM, we evaluated the performance of two real-time PCR assays (AdvanSure and PowerChek).
methodsThis study used 143 DNA samples from respiratory specimens which were collected based on routine PCR results using Anyplex kit. A total of 87 positive samples (65 MTB and 22 NTM) and 56 negative samples were collected consecutively during 6 months and 1 month, respectively. The diagnostic performance of PCR assays (AdvanSure and PowerChek) was retrospectively analyzed based on the results of conventional mycobacterial tests and routine PCR assay.
resultsBased on culture results, the sensitivities/specificities of AdvanSure and PowerChek were 90.7%/87.6% and 92.6%/85.4%, respectively, for MTB detection. For PCR-positive specimens, the quantification cycle (Cq) values of smear-negative specimens were higher than those of the smear-positive specimens (P < 0.001). As expected, the two PCR assays had the same sensitivities for NTM detection, viz. 90.0%, and their specificities were 99.2% and 98.4%, respectively. The overall agreement rate between the three PCR assays was 96.5% for MTB and 97.9% for NTM.
conclusionThe sensitivities of PCR assays in our study might be overestimated, because this study enrolled relatively lower number of PCR-negative samples which potentially missed PCR-negative but culture-positive specimens. However, the two real-time PCR assays for detecting MTB and NTM perform equally well in relative performance evaluation and their Cq values can be considered suitable for predicting smear-positive specimens.
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.