ReviewPulmonary medicine2026
Rapid Molecular Diagnostics of Tuberculosis: What Do We Have, What Do We Need?
Review in Pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rapid Molecular Diagnostics of Tuberculosis: What Do We Have, What Do We Need?Pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Smear microscopy and culture are conventional methods of tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics. Microscopy is fast and inexpensive but has low sensitivity, whereas culture is highly sensitive but may take several weeks. Molecular diagnostic (MDx) methods were widely introduced into TB diagnostics much later, in the early 2010s, when the GeneXpert system was launched. MDx methods combine the benefits of the conventional methods. Furthermore, significant developments have occurred in recent years. The current selection of available rapid MDx methods covers the full range of TB diagnostics: detection of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB, narrow- to broad-range rapid drug susceptibility testing, mycobacterial species identification, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) strain typing. Several issues-often focusing on high assay costs-have still prevented the complete roll-out of MDx methods over conventional methods in both low-resource, high-incidence settings and high-resource, low-incidence settings. This review covers topics related to molecular detection of MTB and MTB drug resistance directly from clinical specimens. The aim of the review is to describe currently available methods, how they perform, and what key issues must be addressed for more optimal implementation. Overall, MDx methods currently represent an essential but often accessory tool in the detection of TB and MTB drug resistance. At present, several limitations-including diagnostic equivalence with the reference method, breadth of drug resistance testing, treatment monitoring, and accessibility due to analysis costs and assay complexity-still hinder efficient replacement of the conventional smear microscopy and culture methods. However, new advances in testing methods and strategies are continuously being made.
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.