SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020
Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assays for active tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in children.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 22 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
88 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for tuberculosis disease and rifampicin resistance in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Low-complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Low-complexity manual nucleic acid amplification tests for pulmonary tuberculosis in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Parallel use of low-complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests on respiratory and stool samples with or without lateral flow lipoarabinomannan assays to detect pulmonary tuberculosis disease in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of stool-based molecular tests and processing methods for paediatric tuberculosis diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Microbe · 2025Pooled it
- Truenat MTB assays for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring the accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in detecting lymph node tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Oral swabs with a rapid molecular diagnostic test for pulmonary tuberculosis in adults and children: a systematic review.The Lancet. Global health · 2024Pooled it
- Stool specimen for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Stool Xpert MTB/RIF as a possible diagnostic alternative to sputum in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of Xpert in tuberculosis diagnosis based on various specimens: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for tuberculosis disease and rifampicin resistance in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of clinical, epidemiological and demographic predictors of tuberculosis in children with pneumonia.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance: a qualitative evidence synthesis of recipient and provider views.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert ultra for childhood tuberculosis: A preliminary systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of diagnostic strategies for tuberculosis using lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay in people living with HIV.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Screening tests for active pulmonary tuberculosis in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Value of Xpert MTB/RIF Using Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Pooled it
- 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
28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvery year, at least one million children become ill with tuberculosis and around 200,000 children die. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid molecular tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and children with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. To inform updated WHO guidelines on molecular assays, we performed a systematic review on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests in children presumed to have active tuberculosis.
objectivesPrimary objectives • To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for (a) pulmonary tuberculosis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; (b) tuberculous meningitis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; (c) lymph node tuberculosis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; and (d) rifampicin resistance in children presumed to have tuberculosis - For tuberculosis detection, index tests were used as the initial test, replacing standard practice (i.e. smear microscopy or culture) - For detection of rifampicin resistance, index tests replaced culture-based drug susceptibility testing as the initial test Secondary objectives • To compare the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for each of the four target conditions • To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in accuracy estimates - For tuberculosis detection, we considered age, disease severity, smear-test status, HIV status, clinical setting, specimen type, high tuberculosis burden, and high tuberculosis/HIV burden - For detection of rifampicin resistance, we considered multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis burden • To compare multiple Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra results (repeated testing) with the initial Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra result SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry up to 29 April 2019, without language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, cross-sectional trials, and cohort studies evaluating Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra in HIV-positive and HIV-negative children younger than 15 years. Reference standards comprised culture or a composite reference standard for tuberculosis and drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus (molecular assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and drug resistance) for rifampicin resistance. We included studies evaluating sputum, gastric aspirate, stool, nasopharyngeal or bronchial lavage specimens (pulmonary tuberculosis), cerebrospinal fluid (tuberculous meningitis), fine needle aspirates, or surgical biopsy tissue (lymph node tuberculosis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2). For each target condition, we used the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified all analyses by type of reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN
resultsFor pulmonary tuberculosis, 299 data sets (68,544 participants) were available for analysis; for tuberculous meningitis, 10 data sets (423 participants) were available; for lymph node tuberculosis, 10 data sets (318 participants) were available; and for rifampicin resistance, 14 data sets (326 participants) were available. Thirty-nine studies (80%) took place in countries with high tuberculosis burden. Risk of bias was low except for the reference standard domain, for which risk of bias was unclear because many studies collected only one specimen for culture. Detection of pulmonary tuberculosis For sputum specimens, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) verified by culture were 64.6% (55.3% to 72.9%) (23 studies, 493 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 99.0% (98.1% to 99.5%) (23 studies, 6119 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For other specimen types (nasopharyngeal aspirate, 4 studies; gastric aspirate, 14 studies; stool, 11 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity ranged between 45.7% and 73.0%, and pooled specificity ranged between 98.1% and 99.6%. For sputum specimens, Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) verified by culture were 72.8% (64.7% to 79.6%) (3 studies, 136 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 97.5% (95.8% to 98.5%) (3 studies, 551 participants; high-certainty evidence). For nasopharyngeal specimens, Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) were 45.7% (28.9% to 63.3%) and 97.5% (93.7% to 99.3%) (1 study, 195 participants). For all specimen types, Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra sensitivity were lower against a composite reference standard than against culture. Detection of tuberculous meningitis For cerebrospinal fluid, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity, verified by culture, were 54.0% (95% CI 27.8% to 78.2%) (6 studies, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 93.8% (95% CI 84.5% to 97.6%) (6 studies, 213 participants; low-certainty evidence). Detection of lymph node tuberculosis For lymph node aspirates or biopsies, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity, verified by culture, were 90.4% (95% CI 55.7% to 98.6%) (6 studies, 68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 89.8% (95% CI 71.5% to 96.8%) (6 studies, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). Detection of rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% (67.6% to 97.5%) (6 studies, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.3% (87.7% to 99.8%) (6 studies, 203 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS'
conclusionsWe found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity to vary by specimen type, with gastric aspirate specimens having the highest sensitivity followed by sputum and stool, and nasopharyngeal specimens the lowest; specificity in all specimens was > 98%. Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra sensitivity in sputum was higher and specificity slightly lower. Xpert MTB/RIF was accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF was sensitive for diagnosing lymph node tuberculosis. For children with presumed tuberculous meningitis, treatment decisions should be based on the entirety of clinical information and treatment should not be withheld based solely on an Xpert MTB/RIF result. The small numbers of studies and participants, particularly for Xpert Ultra, limits our confidence in the precision of these estimates.
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.