ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1996
Comparison of the Roche AMPLICOR MYCOBACTERIUM assay and Digene SHARP Signal System with in-house PCR and culture for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in respiratory specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular diagnostics in tuberculosis: basis and implications for therapy.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2009Review
- Molecular diagnostics in tuberculosis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2005Review
- Innovative low cost technologies for biomedical research and diagnosis in developing countries.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Review
- Four-year experience of use of the Cobas Amplicor system for rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory and nonrespiratory specimens in Greece.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2003Article
- Comparison of a nonradiometric liquid-medium method (MB REDOX) with the BACTEC system for growth and identification of mycobacteria in clinical specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1999Article
- Comparison of Roche Cobas Amplicor Mycobacterium tuberculosis assay with in-house PCR and culture for detection of M. tuberculosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1998Article
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
Two commercial primer kits and detection systems, the Roche AMPLICOR MYCOBACTERIUM test and the Digene primer-probe kit with the SHARP Signal System, were compared to in-house PCR as well as standard culture techniques. For the 27 culture-positive specimens, the Roche AMPLICOR MYCOBACTERIUM test detected 20 specimens, the Digene system detected 19, and in-house PCR detected 21. Of the 86 culture-negative specimens, 13 were positive by the Roche AMPLICOR MYCOBACTERIUM test, 16 were positive by the Digene system, and 21 were positive by in-house PCR. When clinical situations were evaluated, 11 of 13 culture-negative Roche AMPLICOR MYCOBACTERIUM test-positive specimens, 10 of 16 culture-negative Digene system-positive specimens, and 13 of 21 culture-negative-in-house PCR-positive specimens were diagnosed as true-positive specimens. The sensitivities of Roche AMPLICOR MYCOBACTERIUM test, the Digene system, and in-house PCR were 73.81, 69.05, and 80.95%, and the specificities were 97.18, 91.55 and 88.73%, respectively. The positive predictive values were 93.94, 82.86, and 80.95%, and the negative predictive values were 86.25, 83.33, and 88.73%, respectively. For the commercial kits, the Roche AMPLICOR MYCOBACTERIUM test seems to be more sensitive and specific than the Digene system. However, the Roche AMPLICOR MYCOBACTERIUM test cannot be used on nonrespiratory specimens.
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.