ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2022
The value of Xpert MTB/RIF assay of urine samples in the early diagnosis of smear-negative urinary tuberculosis.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to reports, between 30 and 40 percent of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) cases are caused by urinary tract tuberculosis (UTB). It is critical to identify UTB quickly since it frequently precedes delayed medical attention, which can have detrimental effects. This study examined the use of Xpert MTB/RIF, a PCR test that can detect MTB as well as resistance to an important drug, rifampicin (RIF), in UTB particularly, for the early identification of UTB.
methods180 participants with clinically presumptive UTB whose urine samples were chosen for urine sediment smear, culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, and TB-DNA testing at Henan Chest Hospital between January 2019 and July 2022. Evaluation of test performance using Composite Reference Standards (CRSs). We studied and compared the positivity rate for various tests using the t-test. The effectiveness of smear, culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, and TB-DNA was assessed using McNemar test.
resultsIn this subject, a total of 108 participants were diagnosed with UTB, and the positivity rate was 67.1%. Compared with CRS, the positivity rate of Xpert MTB/RIF, smear, culture, and TB-DNA was 29.69% (19/64, P < 0.001), 7.56% (9/119, P < 0.1), 12.12% (4/33, P > 0.05), and 18.75% (6/32, P < 0.1), respectively. The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF assay was significantly better than that of smear and culture tests (78.9% vs. 77.8%, P < 0.05; 78.9% vs. 75%, P < 0.05). Under CRS, the positivity rate for Xpert, culture, and TB-DNA was 31.6% (6/19, P < 0.1), 6.2% (1/16, P > 0.05), and 26.7% (4/15, P > 0.05) for TB-DNA, respectively, compared to smear negative. Xpert MTB/RIF assay specificity was significant for culture and TB-DNA (53.6% vs. 25%, P < 0.01; 53.6% vs. 38.9%, P < 0.05), and Xpert MTB/RIF assay FPV was significant for culture and TB-DNA (53.6% vs. 0%, P < 0.001; 53.6% vs. 0%, P < 0.001).
conclusionXpert MTB/RIF outperforms smear, cultures, and TB-DNA in detecting UTB, plus Xpert MTB/RIF is better suited for early diagnosis in smear-negative UTB.
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.