ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2019
The effect of sputum quality and volume on the yield of bacteriologically-confirmed TB by Xpert MTB/RIF and smear.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of sputum quality on Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra test results for tuberculosis: A multi-country study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Increased tuberculosis case detection in Tanzanian children and adults using African giant pouched rats.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Feature fusion method for pulmonary tuberculosis patient detection based on cough sound.PloS one · 2024Article
- The impact of sputum quality on Xpert positivity in active case-finding for TB.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2024Article
- Improving sputum collection processes to increase tuberculosis case finding among HIV-positive persons in Botswana.Public health action · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization endorsed (2010) the use of Xpert MTB/RIF and countries are shifting from smear microscopy (smear)-based to Xpert MTB/RIF-based tuberculosis (TB) diagnostic algorithms. As with smear, sputum quality may predict the likelihood of obtaining a bacteriologically-confirmed TB when using Xpert MTB/RIF.
methodsFrom 08/12-11/2014, all people living with HIV were recruited at 22 clinics. For patients screened positive using the four TB symptoms their sputa were tested by Xpert MTB/RIF and smear. Laboratorians assessed and recorded sputum appearance and volume. The yield of bacteriologically-positive sputum evaluated using Xpert MTB/RIF and smear, likelihood-ratios were calculated.
resultsAmong 6,041 patients enrolled 2,296 were presumptive TB, 1,305 (56.8%) had > 1 sputa collected and 644/1,305 (49.3%) had both Xpert MTB/RIF and smear results. Since >1 sputa collected from 644 patients 954 sputa were tested by Xpert MTB/RIF and smear. Bacteriologically-positive sputum was two-fold higher with Xpert MTB/RIF 11.4% versus smear 5.3%, p < 0.001. Sputum appearance and quantity were not predictive of bacteriologically-positive results, except volume of 2ml to < 3ml, tested by Xpert MTB/RIF LR+= 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.50).
conclusionXpert MTB/RIF test yield to bacteriologically-positive sputum was superior to smear. Sputum quality and quantity, however, were not consistently predictive of bacteriologically-positive results by Xpert MTB/RIF or smear.
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.