ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Complementary effects of acid-fast staining, culture, and Xpert MTB/RIF
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate diagnostic performance of different combinations of acid-fast staining (AFS), Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) culture across sample types in pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in a referral center.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study on all PTB patients with confirmed microbiological diagnosis in China-Japan Friendship Hospital from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2021. Distribution and sensitivity of different testing strategies were compared for sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and biopsy tissues [transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB)/transbronchial biopsy (TBB)] using parallel AFS/Xpert/culture combinations.
results1,094 microbiologically diagnosed PTB patients were identified. For sputum samples, the most common testing strategy was parallel AFS/Xpert/culture (42.3%), achieving 89.5% (95%CI 85.7%-92.1%) sensitivity. BALF samples demonstrated similar performance with this combination [86.3% sensitivity, (95%CI 82.1%-89.7%)]. In biopsy tissues, the same triad yielded a sensitivity of 73.8% (95%CI 65.0%-81.5%). Xpert and culture showed partially non-overlapping results in all sample types. A subgroup analysis of sputum tested before bronchoscopy showed 56.5% (95%CI 50.2%-62.7%) sputum Xpert sensitivity and 66.7% (95%CI 58.2%-74.2%) culture sensitivity.
conclusionSimultaneous usage of Xpert, AFS and culture on the same specimen increases MTB testing sensitivity on sputum, BALF and TBB/TBLB, which is valuable for early diagnosis for pulmonary tuberculosis in high-burden settings.
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.