ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Multicentric validation of the proof of concept for utility of Trueprep extracted DNA in line probe assay testing.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In India's National Tuberculosis Elimination Program (NTEP), diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) and Drug-Resistant TB (DR-TB) involves collecting two sputum specimens from presumptive TB patients. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is detected using the Truenat MTB - RIF assay at peripheral sites, with Trueprep for DNA extraction. In the case of a MTB positive, the second specimen is sent to a linked reference laboratory for Line Probe Assay (LPA) testing, requiring DNA extraction again. This study aimed to validate Trueprep-extracted DNA for First Line (FL) and Second Line (SL) LPA testing to assess real-time programmatic field conditions and DNA transportation across diverse Indian geographies. Four hundred MTB-positive Trueprep extracted DNA with ≥104 cfu/ml value from the first specimen, accompanied by the second sputum specimen, were transported from nine strategically selected Truenat sites (regions: South- 2, North- 2, East- 2, West- 3) to reference laboratories in a cool chain. The MTB-positive Trueprep-extracted DNA and the Genolyse-extracted DNA from the second specimen were subjected to FL and SL LPA testing, and the results were compared. Whole genome sequencing was performed for discordance resolution among mismatched Trueprep and Genolyse DNA results. Interpretable results were obtained in 397 (99.25%) of the 400 Trueprep-extracted DNA samples for FL LPA testing and 363 (90.75%) samples for SL-LPA testing. In comparison, Genolyse extracted DNA yielded 371 (99.46%) and 362 (97.05%) valid FL and SL LPA results, respectively, from 373 smear-positive specimens. Among 400 specimens, 160 were 105, 122 of 106, 101 of 104, 15 of 107, and 2 of 108 cfu/ml value. High concordance (97.7% for FL, 99.5% for SL LPA) was observed between Trueprep and Genolyse DNA. This study validates Trueprep-extracted DNA for reliable FL and SL-LPA testing in field settings, potentially streamlining NTEP's diagnostic process, reducing reference laboratory workload, eliminating duplicate DNA extractions, and reducing the turnaround time (TAT).
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.