ArticleBMC infectious diseases2020
Evaluation of the performance of an in-house duplex PCR assay targeting the IS6110 and rpoB genes for tuberculosis diagnosis in Cameroon.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advances in nanomaterials for the detection of mycobacterium tuberculosis (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Sensitivity of Different Molecular Techniques for DetectingPolish journal of microbiology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Multiplex PCR for Detection ofJournal of laboratory physicians · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis (TB) remains a major public health concern in many low-income countries accounting for approximately two-thirds of deaths in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. With prompt, accurate and appropriate treatment, almost all TB disease can be cured. The present study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of an in-house duplex PCR (D-PCR) using IS1610 and rpoB specific primers in sputum samples from TB suspected patients.
methodsA hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted at the Limbe and Buea Regional Hospitals of the South West Region of Cameroon from June 2016 to April 2017. Sputum samples, decontaminated with hypertonic saline/sodium hydroxide solution were centrifuged and pellets processed for smear microscopy, culture and DNA extraction. Suspected inhibition was resolved by serial dilution of genomic DNA. Results were compared to culture as gold standard as well as a Composite Reference Standard (CRS).
resultsA total of 129 participants aged between 5 to 82 years were enrolled in to the study. The median age of the participants was 37 years (interquartile range, IQR: 27-50 years), with 54.3% being male. Forty-seven samples (36.4%) were positive by direct sputum microscopy, 49 (38%) by microscopy after concentration, 51 (39.5%) by culture and 62 (40.1%) by D-PCR. PCR inhibition was resolved in 85.7% (18/21) of the samples that had inhibition. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios and area under the curve AUC) of the D-PCR was 93.5, 94, 94, 94%, 15.6, 0.005 and 89.0% respectively using CRS as reference. The sensitivities of D-PCR observed among different sample categories were 95.7, 87.5 and 87.5% for smear-and culture-positives, smear-negative/culture-positive, and clinically diagnosed cases respectively.
conclusionIS1610 and rpoB duplex PCR using relatively cheap decontamination and DNA extraction methods in addition to simple serial dilutions to resolve PCR inhibition shows high sensitivity in the diagnosis of paucibacillary tuberculosis.
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.