Observational studyPloS one2019
Use of GeneXpert and the role of an expert panel in improving clinical diagnosis of smear-negative tuberculosis cases.
Observational study in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Deep Learning-based Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis on Chest X-ray in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the use of GeneXpert MTB/RIF in a zone with high burden of tuberculosis in Thailand.PloS one · 2022Article
- 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
settingA high proportion of notified tuberculosis cases in the Philippines are clinically diagnosed (63%) as opposed to bacteriologically confirmed. Better understanding of this phenomenon is required to improve tuberculosis control.
objectivesTo determine the percentage of smear negative presumptive tuberculosis patients that would be diagnosed by GeneXpert; compare clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed as tuberculosis cases; and review the impact that the current single government physician and a reconstituted Tuberculosis Diagnostic committee (expert panel) may have on tuberculosis over-diagnosis.
designThis a cross-sectional study of 152 patients 15-85 years old with two negative Direct Sputum Smear Microscopy results, with abnormal chest X-ray who underwent GeneXpert testing and review by an expert panel.
resultsThirty-two percent (48/152) of the sample were Xpert positive and 93% (97/104) of GeneXpert negatives were clinically diagnosed by a single physician. Typical symptoms and X-ray findings were higher in bacteriologically confirmed tuberculosis. When compared to the GeneXpert results the Expert panel's sensitivity for active tuberculosis was high (97.5%, 39/40), specificity was low (40.2%, 35/87).
conclusionUsing the GeneXpert would increase the level of bacteriologically confirmed tuberculosis substantially among presumptive tuberculosis. An expert panel will greatly reduce over-diagnosis usually seen when a decision is made by a single physician.
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.