Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39165581›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024

Reflex Xpert MTB/XDR Testing of Residual Rifampicin-Resistant Specimens: A Clinical Laboratory-Based Diagnostic Accuracy and Feasibility Study in South Africa.

C M Centner, R Munir, E Tagliani, F Rieß, P Brown, C Hayes, T Dolby, W Zemanay, D M Cirillo, A David and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. What is new in tuberculosis?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Tuberculosis and HIV coinfection: Progress and challenges towards reducing incidence and mortality.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

C M CentnerDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
R MunirWits Diagnostic Innovation Hub, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
E TaglianiEmerging Bacterial Pathogens Unit, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
F RießDivision of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
P BrownDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
C HayesNational Health Laboratory Service, Gqeberha, South Africa.
T DolbyNational Health Laboratory Service, Cape Town, South Africa.
W ZemanayDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
D M CirilloEmerging Bacterial Pathogens Unit, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
A DavidWits Diagnostic Innovation Hub, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
S G SchumacherTuberculosis Programme, FIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
C M DenkingerTuberculosis Programme, FIND, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7216-7067
M RuhwaldTuberculosis Programme, FIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
V N LeukesTuberculosis Programme, FIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
M P NicolMarshall Centre for Infectious Diseases Research and Training, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
I Van der WaltNational Health Laboratory Service, Gqeberha, South Africa.
G KistenNational Health Laboratory Service, Cape Town, South Africa.
M GumedeNational Health Laboratory Service, Cape Town, South Africa.
A MaceTuberculosis Programme, FIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
A BrinkDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
W StevensWits Diagnostic Innovation Hub, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
L ScottWits Diagnostic Innovation Hub, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
A Penn-NicholsonTuberculosis Programme, FIND, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1883-0059
H CoxDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6538-7192
TB-CAPT Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization-approved Xpert MTB/XDR test detects Methods: Routine respiratory specimens, processed for Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra, were stored in sample reagent buffer at 2°C-8°C. If rifampicin resistant, the residual specimen was assessed for adequate volume (≥2 mL) and tested with Xpert MTB/XDR, with storage time recorded. A second specimen was used for routine and reference standard testing (culture and sequencing). Results: Specimens (99% sputum) from 763 participants submitted to 2 large routine laboratories were included. Xpert MTB/XDR yielded valid resistance detection results in 639 (84%), compared with 507 (66%) for routine testing (difference [95% CI], 18% [13%-22%]). The median turnaround time for results was 23 hours for Xpert MTB/XDR and 15 days for routine testing. While 748 specimens (98%) were ≥2 mL, only 102 (13%) were stored for ≤4 hours. By the reference standard, 284 of 394 (72%) were isoniazid resistant, and 57 of 380 (15%) were fluroquinolone resistant. The sensitivities of Xpert MTB/XDR were 94% (95% CI, 91%-97%) for isoniazid and 91% (81%-97%) for fluoroquinolone resistance detection. The specificities were 98% (94%-100%) and 100% (98%-100%), respectively. Conclusions: Xpert MTB/XDR performed favorably compared with the reference, and the reflex testing approach increased results availability over routine testing, while dramatically decreasing turnaround time from weeks to hours. Laboratory workflow precluded testing within the manufacturer-recommended 4-hour storage time, but longer storage did not appear detrimental.

Indexed as

diagnostic accuracydrug resistancefeasibilitytuberculosisXpert MTB/XDR

Identifiers

PMID39165581
PMCPMC11334068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.