ArticleScientific reports2026
Molecular detection of incidental Mycobacterium tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacteria co-detections using DNA strip assay: a laboratory-based study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Overlapping clinical manifestations of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) detection and diseases caused by non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) pose significant diagnostic challenges in tuberculosis-endemic settings. Conventional methods often fail to provide a discriminated diagnosis and/or detect co-detections; however, molecular assays enable precise species-level identification and simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens, thereby enabling detection of multiple mycobacterial species, including co-detection patterns. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of molecular methods for detecting the incidental coexistence of MTB and NTM, thereby supporting improved laboratory-level identification. A total of 890 clinical samples from patients presumed to have a mycobacterial infection were evaluated. The test involved performing AFB smear microscopy, NAAT, MGIT, and MPT64 antigen testing, followed by analysis using the GenoType Mycobacterium CM/AS, which helped identify MTB complex as well as NTM, thus enabling us to identify accidental co-detections that would arise from MTB-NTM. Out of 890 samples analyzed, 27/890 (3.03%) samples turned out to be positive for NTM detection. In this study, 19/27 (70.3%) had only NTM detection, and 8/27 (29.6%) demonstrated MTB-NTM co-detection. Overall, co-detections accounted for 0.89% (8/890) of the total processed samples and 29.6% (8/27) of the samples positive for NTM. The most predominant species was M. fortuitum, which was followed by M. chelonae, and then a case of simultaneous detection with M. avium complex and M. fortuitum along with MTB. In general, it has been seen that M. fortuitum had the highest frequency in such cases. These findings are based on laboratory detection and should not be interpreted as evidence of confirmed co-infection.
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.