ReviewSAGE open medicine2021
Molecular bacterial load assay versus culture for monitoring treatment response in adults with tuberculosis.
Review in SAGE open medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research progress of AI assisted nano-SERS technology in rapid identification of multi species oral pathogenic biofilms.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Review
- Beyond culturability: VBNC-like and differentially culturableFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- A cytoderm metabolic labeling TPAPy-Tre for real-time detection of vitality ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- The Role of G Protein-Coupled Receptors in the Regulation of Orthopaedic Diseases by Gut Microbiota.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Article
- Diagnostic value of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay combined with endobronchial ultrasonography with a guide sheath for peripheral nodular pulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Article
- Facilitators and barriers to implementing chest radiography in tuberculosis systematic screening of clinically high-risk groups in Ethiopia: A qualitative study.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- Patterns of childhood tuberculosis diagnosis in Ethiopia: A multicenter cross-sectional study.Research square · 2023Article
- New Insights into Biomarkers for Evaluating Therapy Efficacy in Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Narrative Review.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2023Review
- The Changing Paradigm of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment: Successes, Pitfalls, and Future Perspectives.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Validity of InterVA model versus physician review of verbal autopsy for tracking tuberculosis-related mortality in Ethiopia.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Five-year trend analysis of tuberculosis in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia, 2015-2019.International journal of mycobacteriologyArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The lack of rapid, sensitive, and deployable tuberculosis diagnostic tools is hampering the early diagnosis of tuberculosis and early detection of treatment failures. The conventional sputum smear microscopy or Xpert MTB/RIF assay cannot distinguish between alive and dead bacilli and the culture method delays providing results. Tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay is a reverse transcriptase real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction that quantifies viable tuberculosis bacillary load as a marker of treatment response for patients on anti-tuberculosis therapy. However, results are not synthesized enough to inform its comparative advantage to tuberculosis culture technique which is yet the gold standard of care. With this review, we searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, from March 2011 up to February 2021 for clinical trials or prospective cohort studies that compared tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay with tuberculosis culture in adults. We included eight studies that meet the inclusion criteria. Tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay surpasses culture in monitoring patients with tuberculosis during the first few weeks of anti-tuberculosis treatment. It is more desirable over culture for its shorter time to results, almost zero rates of contamination, need for less expertise on the method, early rate of decline, lower running cost, and reproducibility. Its rapid and specific tuberculosis treatment monitoring competency benefits patients and healthcare providers to monitor changes of bacillary load among isolates with drug-susceptible or resistance to anti-tuberculosis regimens. Despite of the high installing cost of the tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay method, molecular expertise, and a well-equipped laboratory, tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay is a cost-effective method with comparison to culture in operational running. To achieve maximum utility in high tuberculosis burden settings, an intensive initial investment in nucleic acid extraction and polymerase chain reaction equipment, training in procedures, and streamlining laboratory supply procurement systems are crucial. More evidence is needed to demonstrate the potential large-scale and sustainable use of tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay over culture in resource-constrained settings.
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.