ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2025
Comparative Analysis of 2 Diagnostic Devices for Detection of
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 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.
- Rates and risk factors of monoresistance against isoniazid and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Almaty, Kazakhstan.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- A multiplex PCR for rapid detection of vancomycin and linezolid resistance genes in clinical and environmental enterococci: A one health diagnostic approach.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid, accurate detection of Methods: From December 2021 to July 2022, sputum samples from 1214 adult patients with presumptive TB in Almaty, Kazakhstan, were tested by BD MAX MDR-TB (Becton Dickinson), Cepheid Xpert MTB/RIF, and mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) liquid culture for detection of TB and drug resistance to rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH). Results: When compared with MGIT, BD MAX sensitivity and specificity for TB detection were 90% and 87%, and Xpert MTB/RIF results were 86% and 92%. For RIF resistance, BD MAX sensitivity and specificity were 91% and 95%, and Xpert MTB/RIF results were 94% and 92%. For INH resistance, BD MAX sensitivity and specificity were 98% and 97%. Whole genome sequencing was conducted for 24 samples with discordant RIF resistance results among the 3 devices to determine mutations related to resistance. When compared with a composite standard based on whole genome sequencing and MGIT, Xpert MTB/RIF had higher sensitivity and specificity for RIF resistance than BD MAX. Conclusions: Countries with high burden of drug-resistant TB should carry out national prevalence surveys to assess rates of multidrug-resistant TB and INH monoresistance. Those with higher rates should consider adopting BD MAX due to its ability to accurately diagnose RIF and INH resistance.
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.