ArticleBMJ global health2026
Uptake and feasibility of task-shifting of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra testing from laboratory technicians to nurses to increase access and reduce time to results: a multicountry mixed method research.
Article in BMJ global health, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTask-shifting tuberculosis (TB) rapid molecular testing from laboratory technicians to nurses could help decentralise TB diagnosis at primary health centres (PHCs) and allow in-ward testing to shorten treatment decision for very sick patients. We assessed the feasibility of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) testing on nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) by nurses in children with presumptive TB at PHCs and in hospitalised children with severe pneumonia within the TB-Speed project in seven countries.
methodsOf 23 PHCs and 15 paediatric wards, 9 and 4 respectively had nurses trained to perform Ultra using the battery-operated GeneXpert Edge. Laboratory technicians performed testing in the other sites. We compared the proportion of samples tested, invalid or error results, TB detection yield, turnaround time (TAT) between sample reception and result at PHC and time to clinician between sample collection and result delivery to clinicians in paediatric wards between nurses and laboratory technicians. External quality assessment (EQA) and site support supervision assessed performance. Self-administered questionnaire and semistructured individual interviews assessed nurses' perceptions.
resultsUltra was done in 253/254 (99.6%) and 258/258 (100%) samples for PHC and hospital nurses versus 895/897 (99.8%) and 874/874 (100%) for laboratory technicians, respectively. At PHC, TAT was below 1 hour 30 min for 158/252 (62.7%) samples tested by nurses versus 677/893 (75.8%) by laboratory technicians, p<0.001. Ultra results were available to clinicians within 3 hours in 201/258 (77.9%) samples for nurses versus 464/874 (53.1%) for laboratory technicians in hospitals, p<0.001. EQA results <87.5% was more common for PHC nurses than PHC laboratory technicians or hospital nurses. Technical difficulties, lack of practice and workload were the main challenges, and training and supervision the main facilitators reported by nurses.
conclusionTask shifting of Ultra testing from laboratory technicians to nurses under close supervision could support decentralisation of TB diagnosis and shorten time to treatment decision for very sick patients.
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.