ArticleMedical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre2021
Performance Comparison of GeneXpert MTB/RIF and ProbeTec ET Tests for Rapid Molecular Diagnosis of Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis in a Low TB/MDR-TB Incidence Country.
Article in Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Diagnosis of Tuberculous Meningitis: Integrating Clinical Assessment and Molecular Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- The Value of GeneXpert MTB/RIF for Detection in Tuberculosis: A Bibliometrics-Based Analysis and Review.Journal of analytical methods in chemistry · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and ProbeTec ET (PTec-ET) assays in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) in Kuwait. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe tested nonrespiratory clinical specimens (n = 3,995) collected from 3,995 patients suspected to have EPTB. These included cavitary fluids (n = 2,054), fine-needle aspirate (FNA)/pus/tissue biopsy (n = 1,461), urine (n = 302), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF, n = 118), and others (n = 60). All specimens were processed for acid-fast bacilli (AFB), culture in mycobacteria growth indicator tube 960 system, and nucleic acid detection by Xpert and PTec-ET according to manufacturer's instructions.
resultsOf 3,995 specimens, 95 were AFB-positive, 403 were culture-positive, and an additional 86 samples had histopathology suggestive of TB. Using culture as reference, the sensitivity and specificity values were 88.33 and 97.3% for Xpert and 72.95 and 97.80% for PTec-ET, respectively. Although performance of both tests was comparable in AFB-positive samples, Xpert detected significantly more cases in culture-positive samples. Among culture-negative samples, Xpert detected 18 more cases including 16 with histopathological evidence of TB. Lowest positivity was detected for both tests in cavitary fluids. Xpert performed better than PTec-ET in culture-positive FNA/pus/tissue biopsy and CSF samples.
conclusionsAlthough performance of both tests was suboptimal for AFB-negative/culture-positive samples, Xpert performed better than PTec-ET and also detected more cases of AFB-negative/culture-negative/histopathology-positive samples. PTec-ET was positive in 3, while Xpert was positive in all 6 culture-positive CSF specimens for rapid diagnosis of TB meningitis. Xpert was thus superior to PTec-ET or smear microscopy in rapid diagnosis of EPTB.
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.