SynthesisPloS one2025
Exploring the accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in detecting lymph node tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Article
- A Granulomatous Puzzle: Tubercular Lymphadenitis Without AFB Clues.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Xpert MTB/RIF assay has exhibited high diagnostic efficiency in detecting lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB). However, different gold standards and types of LNTB specimens may impact Xpert's diagnostic accuracy. This meta-analysis compared the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF on fine needle aspiration (FNA) and tissue samples against that of culture and composite reference standards (CRS) for LNTB diagnosis. In addition, we further reported the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in identifying LNTB in different age groups and rifampicin resistance in LNTB patients.
methodsA systematic search of Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus up to October 26, 2023, was conducted. Studies comparing Xpert MTB/RIF with culture and CRS were selected. Meta-analyses and meta-regression were performed using Stata and Meta Disc software.
resultsIn 9 studies, Xpert MTB/RIF was compared with CRS, while in 24 studies, it was compared with culture. The sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert MTB/RIF test were 85% and 97%, respectively, against CRS and 85% and 78%, respectively, against culture. FNA sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 88% respectively against CRS and 87% and 77% respectively against culture. For tissue samples, the sensitivity and specificity were 74% and 100%, respectively, against CRS and 74% and 77%, respectively, against culture. For the adult cohort (>14 years), the sensitivity and specificity of FNA samples were 80% and 75% against culture and 85% and 88% respectively against CRS. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert for detecting rifampicin resistance were 90% and 99% respectively.
conclusionXpert MTB/RIF demonstrated excellent accuracy for diagnosing LNTB and rifampicin resistance, with FNA samples outperforming tissue samples acquired through biopsy and CRS as superior to culture standards.
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.