ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Tongue Swab Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Testing for Tuberculosis Using a Revised Consensus Protocol: A multi-country diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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.
- Acceptability and feasibility of oral swabs for tuberculosis diagnosis in young children: a qualitative study from Uganda and Peru.Frontiers in tuberculosis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Tongue swabs are a promising specimen for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis. In a previous study using a consensus protocol, tongue swabs tested with Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra, Cepheid, USA) outperformed sputum smear microscopy, but a substantial proportion (6.1%) of results were non-actionable (e.g., invalid/error). We evaluated a revised protocol in four high TB burden countries. Methods: Participants aged ≥12 years with presumptive TB were enrolled from outpatient clinics in the Philippines, South Africa, Nigeria, and Zambia. Tongue swabs were processed using Sample Reagent (SR, Cepheid, USA) diluted 2:1 with phosphate buffer or phosphate-buffered saline and tested with Xpert Ultra. Diagnostic performance was assessed against a culture-based microbiological reference standard and compared to sputum-based tests. Results: From March to November 2024, 1168 participants were enrolled (median age 37 [IQR 28-48] years; 46.7% female, 21.8% living with HIV, 18.5% culture-confirmed TB). The proportion of nonactionable results was 5.6% overall, but was less than 4% in all countries except South Africa (15.4%). Tongue swab sensitivity was 66.0% (95% CI 59.0-72.5); specificity was 99.6% (95% CI 98.9-99.9). Conclusion: The revised protocol yielded low error rates at most sites and moderate sensitivity, supporting tongue swabs as an alternative when sputum is unavailable.
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.