ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Analysis of unsuccessful tests and the effect of prolonged clinical sample preprocessing in the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rifampicin-resistantJournal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay is a widely used technology for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in clinical samples. However, the study on the failure of the Xpert assay during routine implementation and its potential solutions is limited.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the records of unsuccessful tests in the Xpert and the GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) assays between April 2017 and April 2021 at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. To further investigate the effect of prolonged preprocessing on clinical sputum, an additional 120 sputum samples were collected for Xpert testing after 15 min, 3 h, and 6 h preprocessing. The analysis was performed by SPSS version 19.0 software.
resultsA total of 11,314 test records were analyzed, of which 268 (2.37%) had unsuccessful test results. Among these, 221 (1.95%) were reported as "Error", 43 (0.38%) as "Invalid", and 4 (0.04%) as "No result". The most common clinical specimen for Xpert tests was sputum, accounting for 114 (2.17%) unsuccessful tests. The failure rate of urine specimens was lower than that of sputum (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02-0.88, χ
conclusionsThe primary cause of unsuccessful tests in the Xpert assay was reported as "Error". Despite varying failure rates depending on the samples, the Xpert assay can be applied to extrapulmonary samples. For paucibacillary specimens, retesting the remaining preprocessed mixture should be carefully considered.
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.