ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of GeneReady MTB assay on sputum for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis: a prospective multicenter study in China.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this prospective multicenter study, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the novel GeneReady MTB assay on sputum for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Participants with symptoms suggestive of active pulmonary TB from three Chinese hospitals underwent testing with GeneReady, smear microscopy, mycobacterial culture, and Xpert MTB/RIF (G4) assay. GeneReady demonstrated an analytic limit of detection (LOD) of 23.34 CFU/mL (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 16.96-43.05). A total of 537 participants meeting the inclusion criteria were included in our analysis. Against a microbiological reference standard, GeneReady had a sensitivity of 92.46% (319/345, 95% CI: 89.02%-94.92%) and a specificity of 96.35% (185/192, 95% CI: 92.33%-98.39%). When stratified by bacterial load, the sensitivity of GeneReady was higher in smear-positive (96.86%) versus smear-negative (87.01%) patients. When compared with Xpert MTB/RIF (G4), GeneReady showed a positive percent agreement of 94.55% (95% CI: 91.48%-96.73%) and a negative percent agreement of 93.24% (95% CI: 88.68%-96.11%). To conclude, GeneReady showed diagnostic accuracy comparable to Xpert MTB/RIF (G4). Its rapid turnaround, lower cost, and ease of use support its potential as an initial diagnostic tool for pulmonary TB in resource-limited settings. Further studies are warranted to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy in clinical settings across different patient populations.IMPORTANCETuberculosis (TB) remains a global health crisis, hindered by diagnostic gaps in resource-limited settings where high costs restrict access to accurate molecular testing. This study demonstrates that the novel GeneReady MTB assay provides diagnostic accuracy comparable to the widely used Xpert MTB/RIF (G4) assay, but at a significantly lower cost and with simplified operation. By offering a rapid, affordable, and accurate alternative, this test has the potential to expand access to quality TB diagnosis in primary and community healthcare settings, thereby improving case detection and supporting global TB control efforts.
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.