SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Diagnostic accuracy of stool Xpert MTB/RIF assay for adult pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe etiological diagnosis of adult pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) mainly relies on sputum or other respiratory specimens. However, some suspected patients cannot provide adequate sputum, limiting conventional diagnostic methods. Stool is an easily obtainable, non-invasive specimen and, combined with nucleic acid amplification techniques, may offer a new adjunct approach for rapid PTB diagnosis.
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of stool Xpert MTB/RIF for adult PTB.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through April 20, 2026. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A random-effects model was applied to pool diagnostic accuracy estimates, evaluating stool Xpert against microbiological reference standards, including mycobacterial culture or Xpert testing on conventional specimens.
resultsThirteen studies involving 3,033 adult patients were included. Stool processing and testing procedures varied considerably across studies, particularly in reagent types and pre-treatment steps such as homogenization and filtration. Against microbiological reference standards, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 84% (95% CI: 77%-89%) and 96% (95% CI: 90%-99%), respectively. Sensitivity was 84% in both people living with HIV(PLHIV) and uninfected populations, whereas specificity was higher in uninfected individuals (99%, 95% CI: 89%-100%) than in PLHIV patients (91%, 95% CI: 78%-97%). Significant heterogeneity was observed. Meta-regression by region and reference standard showed significant sensitivity differences between African and Asian studies and between studies using sputum culture versus other reference standards, suggesting potential sources of heterogeneity. Against a composite clinical reference standard, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 59% (95% CI: 43%-74%) and 100% (95% CI: 94%-100%), respectively.
conclusionStool Xpert MTB/RIF demonstrates high specificity and good sensitivity for diagnosing adult PTB, with comparable sensitivity in PLHIV and uninfected populations. Its non-invasive and convenient nature supports its potential as a rapid adjunct diagnostic tool. However, sensitivity may be influenced by region, sample processing methods, and choice of reference standard. Further standardized prospective studies are needed to define its clinical utility and clarify its role in clinical practice.
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.