ArticleInternational journal of applied & basic medical research
Diagnostic Efficacy of New Xpert Ultra for Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Using Culture and Composite Reference Standard.
Article in International journal of applied & basic medical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- AI-Enabled Microfluidics for Respiratory Pathogen Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic yield of Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra, and Truenat MTB assays on non-pulmonary samples from suspected cases of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB).European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of GeneXpert MTB/Rif Ultra assay performance on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues forJournal of medical microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Xpert Ultra (Cepheid, USA) is recently introduced with an extra category of trace-positive results and higher sensitivity for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis. Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra for extrapulmonary samples using culture and composite reference standard (CRS) as the gold standard. Materials and Methods: In a 1-year (March 2021-22) prospective observational study, samples of suspected extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) patients were subjected to Ziehl-Neelsen staining, culture, and Xpert Ultra (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) tests. Relevant clinical and treatment information was noted. The diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra compared with culture and CRS was calculated. Results: Out of 1720 suspected patients of EPTB, 223 (13%), predominantly males 135 (60%), with a mean age of 41.46 ± 19.81 years, were diagnosed as TB positive following CRS criteria. The maximum cases were of pleural TB (35.4%), followed by central nervous system TB (17.9%), gastrointestinal TB (17.5%), and lymph node TB (12.1%). Of all samples, 150 (8.7%) were microbiologically confirmed, including 141 detected by Xpert ultra, 67 culture positive, and only 16 smear positive. Among the Xpert Ultra-positive samples, 35 showed trace results, including six false-positive results. Considering culture and CRS as the gold standard, the sensitivity (86.57%, 59.64%) and specificity (94.98%, 99.47%) of Xpert Ultra were calculated, respectively. Rifampicin resistance was detected in 1 (0.70%) sample. Conclusion: Diagnosis of EPTB is a challenge and Xpert Ultra may detect TB at a very early stage. However, it is essential to rule out false-positive results. Additional studies are needed on Xpert Ultra to interpret trace results better.
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.