SynthesisMedicine2022
Head-to-head comparison of the efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2022. 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.
- Utility of cell-free DNA in diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Utility of Nanopore Sequencing for Tuberculous Serous Effusions.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Accuracy of next-generation sequencing for rapid diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy (TBP) head-to-head using meta-analysis method.
methodsOn May 12, 2021, we searched multiple databases for reports that used Xpert Ultra and Xpert for TBP diagnosis head-to-head and screened eligible studies for inclusion. Accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert were compared to that of the composite reference standard (CRS) and culture. When heterogeneity was evident, sources of heterogeneity were explored using subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression analyses.
resultsFive articles met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. When results from different specimens or different reference standards were reported in the same article, we analyzed them as separate studies. Thus, 6 studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert with CRS, 5 studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert with culture. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert Ultra were 52% and 98% compared to CRS, and 82% and 77% compared to culture. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert were 22% and 99% compared to CRS, and 48% and 94% compared to culture. Significant heterogeneity in sensitivity was observed compared to CRS.
conclusionThe sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was moderate but better than that of the Xpert; however, its specificity was lower. The role of Xpert Ultra and Xpert in the early and rapid diagnosis of TBP was limited.
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.