ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2024
Accuracy of cobas MTB and MTB-RIF/INH for Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Drug Resistance.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2024. 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.
- Current Landscape of Molecular Diagnostic Tests and Emerging Tools for Tuberculosis and Drug Resistance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A cartridge-based assay for improved detection of multidrug-resistantJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Undetected rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis associated with rpoB I491F and V170F mutations in Botswana: Diagnostic implications.Journal of global antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the CobasBiomedicines · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the performance of cobas MTB and cobas MTB-RIF/INH for the diagnosis of tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) resistance. Adults presenting with pulmonary tuberculosis symptoms were recruited in South Africa, Moldova, and India. Performance of cobas MTB was assessed against culture, whereas cobas MTB-RIF/INH was assessed using phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and whole-genome sequencing as composite reference standards. Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) or Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) was used as a comparator. The overall sensitivity and specificity of cobas MTB were 95% (95% CI, 93%-96%) and 96% (95% CI, 95%-97%). Among smear-negatives, the sensitivity of cobas MTB was 75% (95% CI, 66%-83%). Among participants tested with both cobas MTB and Xpert, sensitivity was 96% (95% CI, 94%-97%) for cobas MTB and 95% (95% CI, 93%-97%) for Xpert. Among participants tested with both cobas MTB and Ultra, sensitivity was 88% (95% CI, 81%-92%) for cobas MTB and 89% (95% CI, 83%-93%) for Ultra. Sensitivity and specificity of cobas MTB-RIF/INH for RIF and INH detection were 90% (95% CI, 84%-94%) and 100% (95% CI, 99%-100%), and 89% (95% CI, 84%-93%) and 99.5% (95% CI, 98%-100%), respectively. The cobas MTB and cobas MTB-RIF/INH assays exhibited high performance in a diverse population and present a suitable option for molecular detection of tuberculosis and RIF and INH resistance.
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.