ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2025
Evaluation and Comparison of Laboratory Methods in Diagnosing Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Nontuberculous Mycobacteria in 3012 Sputum Samples.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 2025. 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.
- Use of Porphyrin Precursors as a Novel Approach for Detection ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Review
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
Abstract
Tuberculosis is a global public health threat as an infectious disease, and effective blocking of transmission relies on timely diagnosis. Although a number of laboratory tests are available in diagnosing Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), it is still of great need to evaluate their diagnostic value in clinical samples. In this study, we evaluated five MTB diagnostic methods (including conventional sputum smear microscopy, sandwich cup sputum smear microscopy, sputum culture, Xpert-MTB/RIF, and CapitalBio TB/NTM kit detection test) in 3012 sputum specimens and compared their diagnostic performance of the single and combined tests. In the diagnosis of MTB, the Xpert-MTB/RIF had the highest sensitivity, 79.6% (0.770-0.819), among all the single diagnostic methods, and the combination of CapitalBio TB/NTM kit and culture approach significantly increased sensitivity to 88.4% (p < 0.05). In the diagnosis of NTM, the culture method has higher sensitivity (85.7%) compared with the Capital Bio TB/NTM kit method (45.7%). In the diagnosis of mycobacteria, the CapitalBio TB/NTM kit detection test has the highest sensitivity (77.1%) and combined with conventional sputum smear and culture significantly increased the sensitivity further to 84.2%. In conclusion, Xpert-MTB/RIF is a sensitive, rapid, and reliable method for TB detection in sputum samples, and other diagnostic methods including culture are still of great clinical values for improving the sensitivity of MTB diagnosis. The sensitivity of CapitalBio TB/NTM kit in diagnosing NTM is still insufficient in clinical practice.
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.