Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32050915›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2020

Diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis using the MPT64 antigen detection test in a high-income low tuberculosis prevalence setting.

Ida Marie Hoel, Lisbet Sviland, Heidi Syre, Anne Ma Dyrhol-Riise, Ingerid Skarstein, Peter Jebsen, Melissa Davidsen Jørstad, Harald Wiker, Tehmina Mustafa

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Extrapulmonary Comparisons BetweenInfection and drug resistance · 2025
    Review
  7. Frontiers in medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ida Marie HoelCentre for International Health, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Ida.Hoel@uib.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5125-1406
Lisbet SvilandDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Heidi SyreDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Anne Ma Dyrhol-RiiseDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Ingerid SkarsteinDepartment of Microbiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Peter JebsenDepartment of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Melissa Davidsen JørstadCentre for International Health, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Harald WikerDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Tehmina MustafaCentre for International Health, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Haukeland University Hospital · NOOslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of Bergen · NOStavanger University Hospital · NO

Funding

The Research Council of Norway 234457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) poses diagnostic challenges due to the paucibacillary nature of the disease. The immunochemistry-based MPT64 antigen detection test (MPT64 test) has shown promising results for diagnosing EPTB in previous studies performed in low-resource settings, with higher sensitivity than microscopy and culture. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of the MPT64 test in a routine clinical setting in a high-income low TB prevalence country.

methodsExtrapulmonary samples sent for TB diagnostics to microbiology and pathology laboratories at three regional tertiary care hospitals in Norway in a one-year period were included and subjected to the MPT64 test in parallel to the routine TB diagnostic tests.

resultsSamples from 288 patients were included and categorised as confirmed TB cases (n = 26), clinically diagnosed TB cases (n = 5), non-TB cases (n = 243) and uncategorised (n = 14), using a composite reference standard (CRS). In formalin-fixed biopsies, the sensitivity (95% CI) of the MPT64 test, microscopy, PCR-based tests pooled, and culture was 37% (16-62), 20% (4-48), 37% (16-62) and 50% (23-77), respectively, against the CRS. The MPT64 test showed a good positive predictive value (88%) and an excellent specificity (99, 95% CI 92-100) in formalin-fixed biopsies. In fine-needle aspirates, pus and fluid samples, the test performance was lower.

conclusionsThe MPT64 test was implementable in pathology laboratories as part of routine diagnostics, and although the sensitivity of the MPT64 test was not better than culture in this setting, the test supplements other rapid diagnostic methods, including microscopy and PCR-based tests, and can contribute to strengthen the diagnosis of EPTB in formalin-fixed biopsies in the absence of culture confirmation.

Indexed as

AdultAntigens, BacterialBiopsy, Fine-NeedleFemaleHumansImmunologic TestsIncomeMaleMicroscopyMiddle AgedMycobacterium tuberculosisNorwayPolymerase Chain ReactionPrevalenceSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosisAntigens, BacterialMPT64 protein, Mycobacterium tuberculosisAntigen detection testDiagnostic testExtrapulmonary tuberculosisImmunohistochemistryMPT64

Identifiers

PMID32050915
PMCPMC7014701
OpenAlexW3006398785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.