ArticleSAGE open medicine2024
Status of quality indicators in a mycobacteriology culture laboratory, Hawassa, Sidama, Ethiopia.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to assess performance parameters in a Hawassa Tuberculosis Culture Laboratory, in the Sidama Regional Public Health Institute. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between 27 October 2020 and 31 May 2021, on 439 clinical specimens. The specimens were processed using standard procedures, and the final suspension was inoculated into a Microbial Growth Indicator Tube and Lowenstein-Jensen media slant. Ziehl-Neelsen staining and the Bioline test kit were used to identify and confirm Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The data were analyzed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 26). Results: Out of a total of 439 specimens that were processed, the recovery rates for smear-positive specimens were 61% (25 out of 41) and 58.5% (24 out of 41) for the Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube, and the Lowenstein-Jensen methods, respectively. For smear-negative samples, the recovery rates were 4.5% (18 out of 398) for both methods. Only 4 (0.9%) specimens were rejected. The mean turnaround times to detect mycobacteria from smear-positive samples were 14 and 32 days for the Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube and Lowenstein-Jensen methods, respectively. The standard deviations were ±6.3 days and ±9.7 days, respectively. For smear-negative samples, the mean turnaround times were 17.7 and 31 days for the Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube and Lowenstein-Jensen methods, respectively. The standard deviations were ±9.2 days and ±9.6 days, respectively. The contamination rates for the Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube and Lowenstein-Jensen methods were 9.8% (43 out of 439) and 9.6% (42 out of 439), respectively. The detection rate of nontuberculosis mycobacteria was 1.4% (6 out of 439). Conclusion: It demands attention to improve the low recovery rate among smear-negative cultures and culture contamination rates.
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.