Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33622482›Full record

SynthesisEmerging infectious diseases2021

Systematic Review of Pooling Sputum as an Efficient Method for Xpert MTB/RIF Tuberculosis Testing during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Luis E Cuevas, Victor S Santos, Shirley Verônica Melo Almeida Lima, Konstantina Kontogianni, John S Bimba, Vibol Iem, Jose Dominguez, Emily Adams, Ana Cubas Atienzar, Thomas Edwards and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Emerging infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Sputum pooling for rapid and cost-effective active case-finding for TB in prisons.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The impact of sputum quality on Xpert positivity in active case-finding for TB.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Luis E Cuevas
Victor S Santos
Shirley Verônica Melo Almeida Lima
Konstantina Kontogianni
John S Bimba
Vibol Iem
Jose Dominguez
Emily Adams
Ana Cubas Atienzar
Thomas Edwards
S Bertel Squire
Patricia J Hall
Jacob Creswell
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBUniversidade Federal de Alagoas · BRUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversidade Federal de Sergipe · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

GeneXpert-based testing with Xpert MTB/RIF or Ultra assays is essential for tuberculosis diagnosis. However, testing may be affected by cartridge and staff shortages. More efficient testing strategies could help, especially during the coronavirus disease pandemic. We searched the literature to systematically review whether GeneXpert-based testing of pooled sputum samples achieves sensitivity and specificity similar to testing individual samples; this method could potentially save time and preserve the limited supply of cartridges. From 6 publications, we found 2-sample pools using Xpert MTB/RIF had 87.5% and 96.0% sensitivity (average sensitivity 94%; 95% CI 89.0%-98.0%) (2 studies). Four-sample pools averaged 91% sensitivity with Xpert MTB/RIF (2 studies) and 98% with Ultra (2 studies); combining >4 samples resulted in lower sensitivity. Two studies reported that pooling achieved 99%-100% specificity and 27%-31% in cartridge savings. Our results show that pooling may improve efficiency of GeneXpert-based testing.

Indexed as

Molecular Diagnostic TechniquesCost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19HumansMycobacterium tuberculosisSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingSputumTuberculosisantimicrobial resistancebacteriacoronavirus diseaseCOVID-19diagnosticsmycobacteriapandemicpoolingSARS-CoV-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2systematic reviewsTBtuberculosistuberculosis and other mycobacteriavirusesXpert MTB/RIF testing

Identifiers

PMID33622482
PMCPMC7920689
OpenAlexW3131669543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.