Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42799351›Full record

ReviewPulmonary medicine2026

Rapid Molecular Diagnostics of Tuberculosis: What Do We Have, What Do We Need?

Bruno Luukinen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bruno LuukinenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Fimlab Laboratoriot, Tampere, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3578-782X

Funding

Suomen Tuberkuloosin Vastustamisyhdistyksen SäätiöTampereen Tuberkuloosisäätiö
6 · The paper itself

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

Molecular Diagnostic TechniquesMycobacterium tuberculosisTuberculosisBacilloscopyDrug Resistance, BacterialHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsRapid Diagnostic TestsSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosis, Extrapulmonary

Identifiers

PMID42799351
PMCPMC13615511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.