ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
Performance evaluation of the Xpert MTB/XDR test for the detection of drug resistance to
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative whole genome analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolated from BPaLM and individualized regimen treated patients at Dr. Soetomo Hospital, Indonesia.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Multicentre field evaluation of Xpert MTB/XDR in sub-Saharan Africa.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of the Sanity 2.0 assay to detect resistance to rifampicin, isoniazid, and fluoroquinolones in tuberculosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Waste to worth: diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR on contaminated liquid cultures to salvage the detection of drug-resistant tuberculosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Xpert MTB/XDR Assay for Detection of Resistance to Isoniazid, Fluoroquinolone, Aminoglycoside, and Ethionamide Among Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Bangladesh.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- Programmatic Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Utility of Xpert MTB/XDR in Patients With Rifampicin-Resistant Tuberculosis in Georgia.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) poses a significant public health concern in South Africa due to its complexity in diagnosis, treatment, and management. This study assessed the diagnostic performance of the Xpert MTB/XDR test for detecting drug resistance in patients with TB by using archived sputum sediments. This study analyzed 322 samples collected from patients diagnosed with TB between 2016 and 2019 across South Africa, previously characterized by phenotypic and genotypic methods. The Xpert MTB/XDR test was evaluated for its ability to detect resistance to isoniazid (INH), ethionamide (ETH), fluoroquinolones (FLQ), and second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs) compared with phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (pDST) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Culture, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra, and Xpert MTB/RIF (G4) tests were performed to determine sensitivity and agreement with this test for TB detection. The sensitivities using a composite reference standard, pDST, and sequencing were >90% for INH, FLQ, amikacin (AMK), kanamycin (KAN), and capreomycin (CAP) resistance, meeting the WHO target product profile criteria for this class. A lower sensitivity of 65.9% (95% CI: 57.1-73.6) for ETH resistance was observed. The Xpert MTB/XDR showed a sensitivity of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.1-99.3) and specificity of 100% (95% CI: 86.7-100) compared with culture, a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 98.8% (95% CI: 93.7-99.8) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of 100.0% (95% CI: 78.5-100.0) compared with G4, and a PPA of 99.5% (95% CI: 97.3-99.9) and NPA of 100.0% (95% CI: 78.5-100.0) compared with Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for detecting
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.