Observational studyPloS one2021
The Xpert® MTB/RIF diagnostic test for pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients: Benefits and experiences over 2 years in different clinical contexts.
Observational study in PloS one, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Role of GeneXpertTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis by ultrasound-guided biopsy: A retrospective comparison study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Xpert® MTB/RIF has been widely used for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis in Brazil, since 2014. This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate the performance of Xpert in different contexts during a two-year period: (i) laboratory and clinical/epidemiological diagnosis; (ii) HIV-positive and -negative populations; (iii) type of specimens: pulmonary and extrapulmonary. Overall, 924 specimens from 743 patients were evaluated. The performance of the assays was evaluated considering culture (Lowenstein Jensen or LJ medium) results and composite reference standard (CRS) classification as gold standard. According to CRS evaluation, 219 cases (29.5%) were classified as positive cases, 157 (21.1%) as 'possible TB', and 367 (49.3%) as 'not TB'. Based on culture, Xpert and AFB smear achieved a sensitivity of 96% and 62%, respectively, while based on CRS, the sensitivities of Xpert, AFB smear, and culture were 40.7%, 20%, and 25%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert were 96% and 94%, respectively. Metric evaluations were similar between pulmonary and extrapulmonary samples against culture, whereas compared to CRS, the sensitivities were 44.6% and 29.3% for the pulmonary and extrapulmonary cases, respectively. The Xpert detected 42/69 (60.9%) patients with confirmed TB and negative culture on LJ medium, and 52/69 (75.4%) patients with negative AFB smear results. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy based on the types of specimens and population (positive- and negative-HIV). Molecular testing detected 13 cases of TB in culture-negative patients with severe immunosuppression. Resistance to rifampicin was detected in seven samples. Herein, Xpert showed improved detection of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB cases, both among HIV-positive and -negative patients, even in cases with advanced immunosuppression, thereby performing better than multiple other diagnostic parameters.
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.