Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31203380›Full record

SynthesisLung2019

Laboratory Cross-Contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Aleksandra Barac, Hannah Karimzadeh-Esfahani, Mahya Pourostadi, Mohammad Taghi Rahimi, Ehsan Ahmadpour, Jalil Rashedi, Behroz Mahdavipoor, Hossein Samadi Kafil, Adel Spotin, Kalkidan Hassen Abate and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Lung, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The uncertainty of tuberculosis diagnosis.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reports
    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

12 authors.

Aleksandra BaracClinic for Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.
Hannah Karimzadeh-EsfahaniDivision of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mahya PourostadiBiotechnology Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Mohammad Taghi RahimiSchool of Medicine, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.
Ehsan AhmadpourInfectious and Tropical Diseases Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. ehsanahmadpour@gmail.com.
Jalil RashediTuberculosis and Lung Disease Research Center, Faculty of Paramedicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Behroz MahdavipoorDepartment of Laboratory Science, Faculty of Paramedicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Hossein Samadi KafilDepartment of Microbiology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Adel SpotinDrug Applied Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Kalkidan Hassen AbateInstitute of Health Sciences, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Alexander G MathioudakisDivision of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. alexander.mathioudakis@manchester.ac.uk.
Mohammad AsgharzadehFaculty of Paramedicine, Hematology and Oncology Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicrobiological cultures are the mainstay of the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). False-positive TB results lead to significant unnecessary therapeutic and economic burden and are frequently caused by laboratory cross-contamination. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantify the prevalence of laboratory cross-contamination.

methodsThrough a systematic review of five electronic databases, we identified studies reporting rates of laboratory cross-contamination, confirmed by molecular techniques in TB cultures. We evaluated the quality of the identified studies using the National Institute of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, and conducted a meta-analysis using standard methodology recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

resultsBased on 31 eligible studies evaluating 29,839 TB cultures, we found that 2% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1-2%) of all positive TB cultures represent false-positive results secondary to laboratory cross-contamination. More importantly, we evaluated the rate of laboratory cross-contamination in cases where a single-positive TB culture was available in addition to at least one negative TB culture, and we found a rate of 15% (95% CI 6-33%). Moreover, 9.2% (91/990) of all patients with a preliminary diagnosis of TB had false-positive results and received unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.

conclusionsOur results highlight a remarkably high prevalence of false-positive TB results as a result of laboratory cross-contamination, especially in single-positive TB cultures, leading to the administration of unnecessary, harmful treatments. The need for the adoption of strict technical standards for mycobacterial cultures cannot be overstated.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesFalse Positive ReactionsHumansMycobacterium tuberculosisPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsTuberculosisUnnecessary ProceduresCross-contaminationFalse positiveGenotypingLaboratory diagnoseMycobacterium tuberculosisSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.