ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2019
Xpert negative means no TB: A mixed-methods study into early implementation of Xpert in Puducherry, India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance: a qualitative evidence synthesis of recipient and provider views.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Implementation of GeneXpert for TB Testing in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Global health, science and practice · 2021Pooled it
- The diagnostic yield of brushing versus non-brushing bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for Xpert MTB/RIF in patients with suspected tuberculosis: a prospective self-controlled study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionXpert MTB/RIF was implemented in 2016 as the initial diagnostic test for extrapulmonary, pediatric, and human immunodeficiency virus-associated tuberculosis (TB) and as an add-on test for sputum microscopy-negative patients under Revised National TB Control Programme, Puducherry, India. We intended to study the change in TB case notification rates (CNRs) after 2015 and explore the enablers and barriers for implementation of Xpert. MATERIALS AND
methodsSequential mixed-methods study, quantitative phase followed by a descriptive qualitative phase (key informant interviews with healthcare providers in the program).
resultsThe TB (all forms) CNR increased in 2016 followed by a drop to 2015 levels in 2017. There was a reduction in patients notified as sputum-negative pulmonary TB and pediatric TB during 2016-2017. Healthcare providers used a negative Xpert result in ruling out TB among patients who would previously get diagnosed clinically. Perceived benefits of Xpert were efficiency, rapid results, and detecting resistance. Barriers included poor awareness among medical colleges and the private sector, difficulty in motivating sputum microscopy-negative patients for Xpert, and incompletely filled referral forms.
conclusionXpert-negative results should be interpreted cautiously after clinical assessment. Identified barriers should be addressed to ensure that all eligible undergo testing.
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.