Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9508296›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1998

Comparative evaluation of initial and new versions of the Gen-Probe Amplified Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in respiratory and nonrespiratory specimens.

F Gamboa, G Fernandez, E Padilla, J M Manterola, J Lonca, P J Cardona, L Matas, V Ausina

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Molecular Mycobacteriology and Expansion in Disease Diagnosis.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2016
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Strengths and weaknesses of FDA-approved/cleared diagnostic devices for the molecular detection of respiratory pathogens.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2011
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Evaluation of the results of Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct test (MTD) and Mycobacterial culture in urine samples.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2008
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Molecular diagnostics in tuberculosis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2005
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

8 authors.

F GamboaServicio de Microbiologia, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Barcelona, Spain.
G Fernandez
E Padilla
J M Manterola
J Lonca
P J Cardona
L Matas
V Ausina

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated the initial version of the Amplified Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test (Gen-Probe) (AMTDT 1) and the new version of AMTDT (AMTDT 2) for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis directly from respiratory and nonrespiratory samples and compared the results with those of culture and staining methods. The assays were applied to 410 respiratory and 272 nonrespiratory samples collected from 515 patients. The combination of the culture results and clinical diagnosis was considered to be the "gold standard." Ninety-five respiratory specimens were collected from 67 patients with a diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and 68 nonrespiratory specimens were collected from 61 patients with a diagnosis of extrapulmonary TB. With respiratory specimens, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 83, 100, 100, and 96%, respectively, for AMTDT 1 and 94.7, 100, 100, and 98.4%, respectively, for AMTDT 2. With nonrespiratory specimens, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 83, 100, 100, and 94%, respectively, for AMTDT 1 and 86.8, 100, 100, and 98.4%, respectively, for AMTDT 2. The overall results of AMTDT 1 and AMTDT 2 were concordant for 97% (661 of 682) of the samples. Statistically significant differences in sensitivities were found between AMTDT 1 and AMTDT 2 with respiratory specimens. It was concluded that although both nucleic acid amplification methods are rapid, sensitive, and specific for the detection of M. tuberculosis complex in all types of clinical samples, AMTDT 2 appeared to be more sensitive than AMTDT 1 when applied to smear-negative specimens. In contrast AMTDT 2 is more susceptible than AMTDT 1 to inhibitory substances in the amplification reaction. The turnaround time of AMTDT 2 is shorter (3.5 h) than that for AMTDT 1 (5 h).

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesBody FluidsDNA ProbesEvaluation Studies as TopicGene AmplificationHumansLymph NodesMycobacterium tuberculosisPredictive Value of TestsRespiratory SystemRNA, BacterialRNA, RibosomalSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosisTuberculosis, PulmonaryDNA ProbesRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal

Identifiers

PMID9508296
PMCPMC104609

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.