ArticlePublic health action2023
Pooling sputum samples for Xpert® MTB/RIF and Xpert® Ultra testing for TB diagnosis.
Article in Public health action, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Feasibility and acceptability of pooled sputum testing for tuberculosis: a multicountry qualitative study of the Start4All project.BMJ open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of molecular amplification as-says for TB diagnosis is limited by their costs and cartridge stocks. Pooling multiple samples to test them together is reported to have similar accuracy to individual testing and to save costs.
methodsTwo surveys of individuals with presumptive TB were conducted to assess the performance of pooled testing using Xpert® MTB/RIF (MTB/RIF) and Xpert® Ultra (Ultra).
resultsA total of 500 individuals were tested using MTB/RIF, with 72 (14.4%) being MTB-positive. The samples were tested in 125 pools, with 50 pools having ⩾1 MTB-positive and 75 only MTB-negative samples: 46/50 (92%, 95% CI 80.8-97.8) MTB-positive pools tested MTB-positive and 71/75 (94.7%, 95% CI 86.9-98.5) MTB-negative pools tested MTB-negative in the pooled test (agreement: 93.6%, κ = 0.867). Five hundred additional samples were tested using Ultra, with 60 (12%) being MTB-positive. Samples were tested in 125 pools, with 42 having ⩾1 MTB-positive and 83 only MTB-negative samples: 35/42 (83.6%, 95% CI 68.6-93.0) MTB-positive pools tested MTB-positive and 82/83 (98.8%, 95% CI 93.5-100.0) MTB-negative pools tested MTB-negative in the pooled test (agreement: 93.6%, κ = 0.851;
conclusionsPooled and individual testing has a high level of agreement and improves testing efficiency.
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.