SynthesisSexual health2019
Meta-analysis of the Cepheid Xpert
Synthesis in Sexual health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Xpert CT/NG forBioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- Performance of the Xpert™ Mpox PCR assay with oropharyngeal, anorectal, and cutaneous lesion swab specimens.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2024Article
- Clinic-based evaluation of the dual Xpert CT/NG assay on the GeneXpert System for screening for extragenital chlamydial and gonococcal infections amongst men who have sex with men.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Pooled Pharyngeal, Rectal, and Urine Specimens for the Point-of-Care Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- A profile of the binx healthExpert review of molecular diagnostics · 2021Review
- Clinical Performance of the XpertFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Point-by-Point Progress: Gonorrhea Point of Care Tests.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Most studies evaluating extragenital testing performance for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) detection by the Xpert® CT/NG show high per cent agreement with comparison assays; however, the precision around positive per cent agreement is low and thus the values that have been reported are not highly informative. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted and data from five studies were combined to better assess positive per cent agreement.
methodsThe literature indexed on PubMed.gov was searched. Included studies were those that were an evaluation of the Xpert CT/NG assay with rectal and/or pharyngeal specimen types compared with another nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), the Aptima transcription mediated amplification assay. A full Bayesian method was used for bivariate fixed-effect meta-analysis of positive and negative per cent agreement and pooled estimates (and 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were presented for each.
resultsThe pooled positive and negative per cent agreement for detection of CT in rectal specimens was 89.72% (95% CI: 84.97%, 93.64%) and 99.23% (95% CI: 98.74%, 99.60%), and in pharyngeal specimens, they were 89.96% (95% CI: 66.38%, 99.72%) and 99.62% (95% CI: 98.95%, 99.95%) respectively. For NG detection in rectal specimens, the pooled positive and negative per cent agreement was 92.75% (95% CI: 87.91%, 96.46%) and 99.75% (95% CI: 99.46%, 99.93%), and in pharyngeal specimens, they were 92.51% (95% CI: 85.84%, 97.18%) and 98.56% (95% CI: 97.69%, 99.23%) respectively.
conclusionsIt was found that the Xpert CT/NG assay performed similarly to the Aptima transcription mediated amplification assay for the detection of CT and NG in extragenital specimens. The Xpert assay has the benefit of providing faster results at the point-of-care, thus reducing the turnaround time for results, potentially enabling same-day treatment.
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.