Observational studyScientific reports2021
Diagnostic performance of the Abbott RealTime MTB assay for tuberculosis diagnosis in people living with HIV.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Landscape of Molecular Diagnostic Tests and Emerging Tools for Tuberculosis and Drug Resistance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advancements in laboratory diagnostics for HIV/MTB coinfection: Integrating conventional methods with emerging technologies.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating Tuberculosis Screening Tools: A Decade-Long Network Meta-Analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity with Bibliometric Insights.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Strengthening tuberculosis diagnosis is an international priority and the advocacy for multi-disease testing devices raises the possibility of improving laboratory efficiency. However, the advantages of centralized platforms might not translate into real improvements under operational conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the field use of the Abbott RealTime MTB (RT-MTB) and Xpert MTB/RIF assays, in a large cohort of HIV-positive and TB presumptive cases in Southern Mozambique. Over a 6-month period, 255 HIV-positive TB presumptive cases were consecutively recruited in the high TB/HIV burden district of Manhiça. The diagnostic performance of both assays was evaluated against two different reference standards: a microbiological gold standard (MGS) and a composite reference standard (CRS). Results from the primary analysis (MGS) showed improved sensitivity (Se) and reduced specificity (Sp) for the Abbott RT-MTB assay compared to the Xpert MTB/RIF (RT-MTB Se: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.75;0.99) vs Xpert Se: 0.73 (95% CI: 0.52;0.88) p value = 0.06; RT-MTB Sp: 0.80 (0.72;0.86) vs Xpert Sp: 0.96 (0.92;0.99) p value < 0.001). The lower specificity may be due to cross-reactivity with non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTMs), the detection of non-viable MTBC, or the identification of true TB cases missed by the gold standard.
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.