ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Diagnostic accuracy of tongue swab testing in persons with sputum Xpert Ultra Trace results.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Molecular amplification of tongue swab samples is a non-sputum-based investigational approach to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis (pTB). An improved manual qPCR method for tongue swabs recently achieved >90% sensitivity overall in diagnosing TB, compared to a sputum microbiologic reference standard. Performance characteristics in persons with low-positive results on sputum molecular tests are unknown. Methods: Adults in South Africa and Uganda with sputum Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Trace (TR+) results were recruited for confirmatory evaluation and follow-up. They underwent symptom evaluation, examination, chest X-ray, further sputum testing (repeat Xpert Ultra and two solid and liquid mycobacterial cultures), and two tongue swabs. Tongue swabs were tested using qPCR amplification of the IS6110 gene. A single copy detected on >=1 swab was considered TB-positive. TR+ persons not diagnosed with TB at baseline were re-evaluated at 1 and 3 months. We determined the sensitivity and specificity of tongue swabs against TB culture alone, a microbiologic reference standard (MRS: any positive result from Xpert Ultra or TB culture) and a composite reference standard (CRS: a clinical recommendation for TB treatment or any positive culture) at baseline. Results: 225 enrolled TR+ participants (115 (51%) women, median age 38 [IQR 30-47], 130 (58%) people living with HIV (PWH)) provided at least 1 tongue swab at baseline. With a culture reference standard, 45 (20%) were positive for TB at baseline testing; 58 (26%) were positive for TB by MRS and 83 (37%) by CRS. Sensitivity and specificity of tongue swabs against culture were 25% [95% CI 13-40%] and 94% [90-97%], vs. MRS were 25% [95% CI 14-38%] and 96% [91-98%], and vs. CRS were 16% [9-26%] and 94% [89-98%]. Conclusion: Tongue swabs had low sensitivity and moderately high specificity for TB in persons with a Trace Xpert Ultra result. Tongue swabs have limited value for diagnosing people with low-positive molecular test results of uncertain clinical significance.
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.