ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF assay accuracy for diagnosing TB and detecting rifampin resistance in patients with very low bacterial loads results: a retrospective study in Hunan, China.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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.
- Utilizing RT-PCR for infectious disease diagnosis with emphasis on non-tuberculous mycobacteria in Bangladesh, 2019-2024.BMC infectious diseases · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is widespread use of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis and rifampin resistance (RIF-R) detection. Despite this, concerns have been raised about false-positive results, which are more prevalent in patients with very low bacterial loads.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 717 patients at Hunan Chest Hospital from January 2022 to January 2023, all of whom had Xpert MTB/RIF results indicating very low bacterial loads. The accuracy of Xpert in diagnosing TB was evaluated against a composite reference standard (CRS), which classified cases via symptom, liquid culture, imaging assessments, immunological tests, and therapeutic response. In addition, rifampicin resistance was adjudicated using a composite reference standard of pDST and rpoB sequencing, with pDST as the primary reference for Xpert MTB/RIF results and sequencing used to resolve discrepancies.
resultsOf 717 patients with Xpert detected very low bacterial loads, 175 (24.4%) yielded positive cultures, while 16 cases identified as non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). The positive predictive value (PPV) of Xpert for bacteriologically confirmed TB was 90.8% (159/175). For 542 culture-negative patients, Xpert’s PPV was 81.7% (443/542) in clinically diagnosed TB (80.4% pulmonary TB, 88.9% extrapulmonary TB). In 121 patients with pDST, Xpert for RIF-R had 68.4% sensitivity (13/19), 88.2% specificity (90/102), respectively. Among the 6 patients who were RIF-R by pDST but rifampin susceptible by Xpert, four cases harbored mutations inside the 81-bp Rifampicin Resistance-Determining Region (RRDR) region of rpoB.
conclusionXpert demonstrates good performance in diagnosing TB among the patients with results showing very low bacterial loads, especially in the culture-positive group and extrapulmonary tuberculosis group. However, its performance in detecting rifampicin resistance is not reliable. Our findings emphasize that Xpert results showing very low bacterial loads should be confirmed when diagnosing rifampin resistance tuberculosis.
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.