ArticlePublic health action2021
Laboratory comparison of stool processing methods for Xpert
Article in Public health action, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Xpert Ultra stool testing to diagnose tuberculosis in children in Ethiopia and Indonesia: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Centrifugation Versus Centrifugation-Free Stool Processing: Can the Simple One-Step Method Reliably Diagnose Pediatric Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Lessons Learned from Early Implementation and Scale-up of Stool-Based Xpert Testing to Diagnose Tuberculosis in Children.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Evaluating the health impact, health-system costs and cost-effectiveness of using TrueNat on stool samples compared to usual care for the diagnosis of paediatric tuberculosis in primary care settings: A modelling analysis.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy, feasibility and acceptability of stool-based testing for childhood tuberculosis.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- Optimization of the Simple One-Step Stool Processing Method to Diagnose Tuberculosis: Evaluation of Robustness and Stool Transport Conditions for Global Implementation.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Use of stool swabs in molecular transport media increases access to Xpert Ultra testing for TB in children.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2023Article
- Comparison of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Results of Stool and Sputum in Children with Presumptive Tuberculosis in Southern Ethiopia.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Pediatric Tuberculosis Diagnostics: Present and Future.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2022Article
- Rapid Molecular Diagnosis of Extra-Pulmonary Tuberculosis by Xpert/RIF Ultra.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
TB disease diagnosis in children is difficult due to non-specific symptoms, paucibacillary disease and the need for invasive procedures to obtain diagnostic specimens. In many settings, these specimens are simply not collected and therefore stool, easily obtained, has emerged as a promising specimen for the diagnosis of child TB. In this study, stool from a healthy adult was spiked with known concentrations of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine and tested using the Xpert
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.