ArticleTuberculosis (Edinburgh, Scotland)2021
Evaluation of the molecular bacterial load assay for detecting viable Mycobacterium tuberculosis in cerebrospinal fluid before and during tuberculous meningitis treatment.
Article in Tuberculosis (Edinburgh, Scotland), 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathogens of the Human Central Nervous System- the Major Bacterial Pathogens.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- Cerebrospinal fluid analysis in tuberculous meningitis: A literature review.Surgical neurology international · 2025Review
- Targeted sequencing from cerebrospinal fluid for rapid identification of drug-resistant tuberculous meningitis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
New tools to monitor treatment response and predict outcome from tuberculous meningitis (TBM) are urgently required. We retrospectively evaluated the 16S rRNA-based molecular bacterial load assay (MBLA) to quantify viable Mycobacterium tuberculosis in serial cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from adults with TBM. 187 CSF samples were collected before and during the first two months of treatment from 99 adults TBM, comprising 56 definite, 43 probable or possible TBM, and 18 non-TBM and preserved at -80°C prior to MBLA. We compared MBLA against MGIT culture, GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) smear. Before treatment, MBLA was positive in 34/99 (34.3%), significantly lower than MGIT 47/99 (47.5%), Xpert 51/99 (51.5%) and ZN smear 55/99 (55.5%). After one month of treatment, MBLA and MGIT were positive in 3/38 (7.9%) and 4/38 (10.5%), respectively, whereas Xpert and ZN smear remained positive in 19/38 (50.0%) and 18/38 (47.4%). In summary, MBLA was less likely to detect CSF bacteria before the start of treatment compared with MGIT culture, Xpert and ZN smear. MBLA and MGIT positivity fell during treatment because of detecting only viable bacteria, whereas Xpert and ZN smear remained positive for longer because of detecting both live and dead bacteria. Sample storage and processing may have reduced MBLA-detectable viable bacteria; and sampling earlier in treatment may yield more useful results. Prospective studies with CSF sampling after 1-2 weeks are warranted.
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.