ArticleInfectious medicine2026
Performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for diagnosis of tuberculosis: A retrospective study in a city with intermediate tuberculosis burden.
Article in Infectious medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra) was shown to be useful for diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) in areas of high and low TB burden. However, data from intermediate TB burden settings remains limited. This study aims to evaluate the performance of Ultra in Hong Kong, China, a city with intermediate TB burden. Methods: Consecutive adult patients in Haven of Hope Hospital with samples processed with microscopy, Ultra and mycobacterial culture during routine practice between 1st December 2018 and 31st December 2020 were identified retrospectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of Ultra were calculated, using mycobacterial culture as the gold standard and a composite reference standard . Test performance in detecting rifampicin resistance was evaluated. Results: A total of 1706 samples (1556 respiratory, 150 extra-pulmonary) were included, with 269 culture-positive TB, and 345 clinical TB. Overall, Ultra had a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.0%-98.4%), specificity of 96.7% (95% CI: 95.6%-97.5%), PPV of 84.4% (95% CI: 80.1%-88.2%) and NPV of 99.4% (95% CI: 98.8%-99.7%) for the detection of tuberculosis against mycobacterial culture. Against composite reference standard as a reference standard, sensitivity was lowered to 84.3% (95% CI: 80.3%-87.9%), but specificity was higher at 98.8% (95% CI: 98.1%-99.3%). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of Ultra to detect rifampicin resistance were 100.0% in this study. Conclusions: Ultra is highly sensitive and specific in diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis and useful in diagnosing extra-pulmonary tuberculosis in a population with intermediate tuberculosis burden. It also has good performance in detecting rifampicin resistance.
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.