SynthesisLung2019
Laboratory Cross-Contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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.
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.
- Diagnostic Performance of Nanopore-targeted Sequencing for Sputum Smear-negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Retrospective Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Tuberculosis Diagnostic Methods: Clinical Applicability, Implementation Challenges, and Integrated Testing Strategies.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advances in the Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Reduced bacillary load in elderly patients with active extrapulmonary and pulmonary tuberculosis in Peru: analysis of confirmatory culture after acid-fast bacilli test.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Lifestyle interventions delivered by eHealth in chronic kidney disease: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- A united model for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis with random forest and artificial neural network.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of the Abbott RealTime MTB assay for tuberculosis diagnosis in people living with HIV.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
- TB or not TB? Definitive determination of species within the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in unprocessed sputum from adults with presumed multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2021Article
- Cross-Contamination versus Outbreak: Pre-XDR Mycobacterial Strains Confirmed by Whole-Genome Sequencing.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Mixed tuberculosis infections in Northwest of Iran.Le infezioni in medicina · 2021Article
- The uncertainty of tuberculosis diagnosis.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2020Article
- False-Positive Mycobacterium tuberculosis Detection: Ways to Prevent Cross-Contamination.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2020Article
- GeneXpert Technology for the diagnosis of HIV-associated tuberculosis: Is scale-up worth it?Open life sciences · 2020Article
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
31203380What 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.