ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis in samples with different results by smear and culture in a coastal city with high incidence of tuberculosis.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Extrapulmonary Comparisons BetweenInfection and drug resistance · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis (TB) is a global problem that seriously jeopardizes human health. Among them, the diagnosis and treatment of smear- or culture-negative TB patients is a challenge. The Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay has been reported to be a novel molecular diagnostic tool for rapidly detecting TB. Still, there is limited data on this assay's performance in subgroups of TB patients. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of the Xpert method in patients with different smear and culture results and to assess its efficacy for rifampicin resistance (RR) detection.
methodsWe retrospectively collected data from 1,721 patients with a clinical diagnosis of tuberculosis. Smear, Xpert, and traditional solid culture methods were used to detect TB infection and explore the detection rate of Xpert in the grouping of results from different smear and culture methods. Information on RR detected by the Xpert method and proportional method of drug sensitivity test (DST) was also recorded and kappa values, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated.
resultsWe observed that among the three methods, the Xpert method had the highest detection rate of 66.8%, followed by the culture method at 56.0% and the smear method had the lowest at 40.0%. The detection rate of Xpert was 98.3% (642/653) when both smear and culture were positive, 85.1% (296/348) when only one of the two methods, smear and culture, was positive, and 29.4% (212/720) when both smear and culture were negative. The Xpert method and DST showed a high agreement (κ = 0.92) for RR detection. The highest mutation rate was observed for probe E (64.7%), and the least number of probe C mutations occurred (1.5%).
conclusionThe Xpert method has high detection efficiency. It has good diagnostic value in detecting MTB and RR, especially in cases where traditional culture and sputum smear results are negative, and significantly reduces the rate of missed diagnosis.
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.