SynthesisBMC microbiology2019
Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of rifampicin resistance in different regions: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Isolated neural arch tuberculosis with tuberculomas: case report.Skeletal radiology · 2024Article
- New insight in molecular detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.AMB Express · 2024Review
- Rapid Diagnosis of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis-Opportunities and Challenges.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluating the Sensitivity of Different Molecular Techniques for DetectingPolish journal of microbiology · 2023Article
- Review
- Anti-tuberculosis treatment strategies and drug development: challenges and priorities.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2022Review
- Validation of Serotransferrin in the Serum as Candidate Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis by Label-Free LC/MS.ACS omega · 2022Article
- Assessment of Factors Associated with Unfavorable Outcomes among Drug-Resistant TB Patients: A 6-Year Retrospective Study from Pakistan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Characterization of Fluoroquinolone-Resistant and Multidrug-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Head-to-Head Comparison between Xpert MTB/RIF Assay and Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay Using Bronchial Washing Specimens for Tuberculosis Diagnosis.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2022Article
- Need for caution when interpreting XpertThe international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2021Article
- Gene Xpert/MTB RIF assay for spinal tuberculosis- sensitivity, specificity and clinical utility.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Article
- GeneXpert on patients with human immunodeficiency virus and smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Recent Developments in Tuberculous Meningitis Pathogenesis and Diagnostics.Wellcome open research · 2019Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo estimate the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance in different regions, a meta-analysis was carried out.
methodsSeveral databases were searched for relevant studies up to March 3, 2019. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate the diagnostic accuracy.
resultsWe identified 97 studies involving 26,037 samples for the diagnosis of rifampicin resistance. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection were 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.95), 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), respectively. For different regions, the pooled sensitivity were 0.94(95% CI 0.89-0.97) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.94), the pooled specificity were 0.98 (95% CI 0.94-1.00) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), and the AUC were 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) in high and middle/low income countries, respectively. The pooled sensitivity were 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), the pooled specificity were 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), and the AUC were 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) in high TB burden and middle/low prevalence countries, respectively.
conclusionsThe diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection was excellent.
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.