SynthesisBioscience reports2020
Which sample type is better for Xpert MTB/RIF to diagnose adult and pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis?
Synthesis in Bioscience reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Time to Change": To What Extent Could Non-Sputum Sampling Accelerate the Fight Against Tuberculosis-A Qualitative Study Among End-Users.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Advances in TB testing.Advances in clinical chemistry · 2023Article
- Contributions of GeneXpertThe international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2022Article
- A Novel Cross-Priming Amplification-Based Assay for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Children Using Gastric Aspirate.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review aimed to identify proper respiratory-related sample types for adult and pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), respectively, by comparing performance of Xpert MTB/RIF when using bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), induced sputum (IS), expectorated sputum (ES), nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs), and gastric aspiration (GA) as sample.
methodsArticles were searched in Web of Science, PubMed, and Ovid from inception up to 29 June 2020. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated, each with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality assessment and heterogeneity evaluation across included studies were performed.
resultsA total of 50 articles were included. The respective sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% CI: 0.84-0.89), 91% (95% CI: 0.90-0.92) and 95% (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) in the adult BAL group; 90% (95% CI: 0.88-0.91), 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.98) and 97% (95% CI: 0.95-0.99) in the adult ES group; 86% (95% CI: 0.84-0.89) and 97% (95% CI: 0.96-0.98) in the adult IS group. Xpert MTB/RIF showed the sensitivity and specificity of 14% (95% CI: 0.10-0.19) and 99% (95% CI: 0.97-1.00) in the pediatric ES group; 80% (95% CI: 0.72-0.87) and 94% (95% CI: 0.92-0.95) in the pediatric GA group; 67% (95% CI: 0.62-0.72) and 99% (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) in the pediatric IS group; and 54% (95% CI: 0.43-0.64) and 99% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) in the pediatric NPA group. The heterogeneity across included studies was deemed acceptable.
conclusionConsidering diagnostic accuracy, cost and sampling process, ES was a better choice than other sample types for diagnosing adult PTB, especially HIV-associated PTB. GA might be more suitable than other sample types for diagnosing pediatric PTB. The actual choice of sample types should also consider the needs of specific situations.
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.