ArticleTuberculosis and respiratory diseases2020
False-Positive Mycobacterium tuberculosis Detection: Ways to Prevent Cross-Contamination.
Article in Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance of Nanopore-targeted Sequencing for Sputum Smear-negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Retrospective Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- The diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing versus traditional microbiological testing in native pyogenic spinal infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Review
- Contamination rates in serially sampled sputum specimens obtained during tuberculosis treatment to capture culture conversion.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of AdvanSureDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Identification of immune infiltration and cuproptosis-related molecular clusters in tuberculosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Cross-Contamination versus Outbreak: Pre-XDR Mycobacterial Strains Confirmed by Whole-Genome Sequencing.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Mixed tuberculosis infections in Northwest of Iran.Le infezioni in medicina · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gold standard method for diagnosis of tuberculosis is the isolation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis through culture, but there is a probability of cross-contamination in simultaneous cultures of samples causing false-positives. This can result in delayed treatment of the underlying disease and drug side effects. In this paper, we reviewed studies on falsepositive cultures of M. tuberculosis. Rate of occurrence, effective factors, and extent of false-positives were analyzed. Ways to identify and reduce the false-positives and management of them are critical for all laboratories. In most cases, falsepositive is occurring in cases with only one positive culture but negative direct smear. The three most crucial factors in this regard are inappropriate technician function, contamination of reagents, and aerosol production. Thus, to reduce false-positives, good laboratory practice, as well as use of whole-genome sequencing or genotyping of all positive culture samples with a robust, extra pure method and rapid response, are essential for minimizing the rate of false-positives. Indeed, molecular approaches and epidemiological surveillance can provide a valuable tool besides culture to identify possible false positives.
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.