ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Concordance and discordance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF and conventional culture method for diagnosis of Extra-Pulmonary Tuberculosis at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify concordance and discordance between GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay and gold standard bacteriologic culture for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in Extra-Pulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) specimens in our region. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at the Indus Hospital and Health Network. Data from 1 Results: Out of 1499 EPTB specimens, 1370 (91.39%) specimens exhibited concordance between GeneXpert and conventional culture method, while 129 (8.60%) specimens showed discordance. GeneXpert exhibited sensitivity and specificity of 69.4% and 94.3% respectively in comparison to culture. Conclusion: GeneXpert sensitivity for the diagnosis of EPTB varied with the site involved. Lower sensitivity was observed in ascitic and pleural fluids as compared to higher sensitivity observed among urine samples and pus aspirates. However, given the quick turnaround time and ease of use, it is a helpful tool in the diagnosis of EPTB when utilized in the appropriate clinical context. Caution is advised while interpreting negative GeneXpert results in endemic settings and should be interpreted along with other supporting clinical and diagnostic features.
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.