ArticleCureus2024
Examining Diagnostic Efficacy: GeneXpert Versus Traditional Staining Techniques With Culture in the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Predictive Value of Semi-Quantitative GeneXpert Categories for Microbiological Outcomes in Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Association of clinical laboratory parameters with latent tuberculosis infection among healthcare workers of primary health centers-A cross-sectional observational study.PLOS global public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis involves various methods, such as microscopic examination, culture-based methods, molecular techniques, chest X-rays, serological tests, and interferon-gamma release assays. These methods help identify and confirm TB and its resistance to rifampicin, balancing speed and accuracy for prompt treatment initiation and effective disease management. Aims and objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of GeneXpert, Ziehl-Neelsen staining, and fluorescence staining compared to culture media in TB-suspected patients. Materials and methods We analysed 416 patient samples for TB over one year using GeneXpert, Ziehl-Neelsen staining, fluorescence staining, and Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium. Only samples with a suspicion of TB were included in the study. The samples received without clinical history and requests for all four tests were excluded. Results A total of 416 patient samples were categorised into pulmonary and extrapulmonary samples. GeneXpert detected 62 positive cases for TB, out of which 53 were rifampicin-sensitive, seven were rifampicin-indeterminate, and two were rifampicin-resistant. The indeterminate samples were further evaluated using the line probe assay (LPA), of which six were rifampicin-sensitive, and one was rifampicin-resistant. Fluorescent staining detected 44 cases, Ziehl-Neelsen staining detected 40 cases, and LJ culture medium detected 65 cases. Conclusion GeneXpert is superior to staining methods for detecting TB. GeneXpert, combined with microscopy and culture, can enhance TB and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) detection and aid in early treatment initiation.
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.