Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8567908›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical microbiology1995

Diagnostic value of an amplification method (Gen-Probe) compared with that of culture for diagnosis of tuberculosis.

F Vlaspolder, P Singer, C Roggeveen

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Tuberculosis of the breast.Annals of thoracic medicine · 2008
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

F VlaspolderDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Medical Center Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
P Singer
C Roggeveen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Five hundred fifty respiratory and nonrespiratory specimens from 340 patients were analyzed by comparing the Gen-Probe Amplified Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test (MTD) with conventional culture, which was the method of reference, for the detection of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. After resolution of discrepant results by retesting the samples and reviewing the patients' clinical histories, a total of 60 respiratory specimens were MTD and culture positive, 347 were MTD and culture negative, 4 were MTD positive and culture negative, and 1 was MTD negative and culture positive. This results in a sensitivity of 98.4%, a specificity of 98.9%, and positive and negative predictive values of 93.8 and 99.7%, respectively. Repeatedly, clinicians asked to test specimens of nonpulmonary origin by MTD. Although, MTD is not approved for use with nonrespiratory specimens, the following results were shown. Sixty-one pleural exudate specimens showed disappointing results (sensitivity, 20%). However, MTD performed well with another 77 nonrespiratory specimens; 17 samples were positive and 57 samples were negative by both MTD and culture. No false-negative results were found by MTD. Three MTD-positive, culture-negative specimens had high sample relative light unit/cutoff relative light unit ratios, strongly suggesting true tuberculosis. Positive microscopy and positive culture with MTD-negative results occurred 12 times. Those cultures showed atypical mycobacteria 11 times and Actinomyces species once. The stability of the reagents in the MTD kit was also assessed by testing reagents, including the enzyme mixture, kept at -70 degrees C for at least 6 months. No loss of activity was seen.

Indexed as

Molecular Probe TechniquesReagent Kits, DiagnosticHumansMycobacterium tuberculosisNetherlandsPleuraPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRespiratory SystemRNA, RibosomalSpecimen HandlingTranscription, GeneticTuberculosisReagent Kits, DiagnosticRNA, Ribosomal

Identifiers

PMID8567908
PMCPMC228558

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.