ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2020
Performances and usefulness of Xpert MTB/RIF assay in low-incidence settings: not that bad?
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Xpert MTB/RIF assay, a real-time PCR assay designed to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis, has proven sensitive and specific when performed on respiratory samples in a high prevalence setting. However, it was suggested as less accurate in a low-incidence environment. We evaluated the accuracy of the Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) on pulmonary and extrapulmonary samples in Geneva (Switzerland), where the prevalence of active TB is very low. From March 2009 to February 2013, the Xpert was performed on clinical samples. All specimens were also processed using auramine, AFB staining, and mycobacterial culture with both solid and liquid media. The accuracy of both microscopy and Xpert was determined retrospectively using cultures as the reference method. A total of 732 clinical specimens were processed with the Xpert. The Xpert had a high specificity (97.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.8-98.5%) and revealed much more sensitive (82.7%; 95% CI, 74.1-89.0%) than microscopy (55.5%; 95% CI, 45.7-64.8%) for the diagnosis of TB, with a high negative predictive value (96.8%; 95% CI, 95.0-98.0%). The advantage of PCR over microscopy was even more pronounced for extrapulmonary specimens (sensitivity of 70% (95% CI, 50.4-84.6%) compared with 23.3% (95% CI, 10.6-42.7%)). Despite the low prevalence of TB in Switzerland, results performance for respiratory samples was similar to that reported in high prevalence countries. The high negative predictive value is clinically helpful in our setting, where pulmonary TB needs to be reasonably ruled out. When considering extrapulmonary samples, microscopy performed poorly compared with Xpert. This study shows that the Xpert remains accurate and useful in a low-incidence setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32306143What 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.