Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9650955›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1998

Comparison of Roche Cobas Amplicor Mycobacterium tuberculosis assay with in-house PCR and culture for detection of M. tuberculosis.

B R Eing, A Becker, A Sohns, R Ringelmann

Abstract readComparative Study
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 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

B R EingInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Immunologie, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Germany. eingb@uni-muenster.de
A Becker
A Sohns
R Ringelmann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The new Roche Cobas Amplicor Mycobacterium tuberculosis assay, which is a semiautomated version of the manually performed Roche Amplicor M. tuberculosis test, was compared to culture and an IS6110-based in-house PCR protocol. A total of 1,681 specimens from 833 patients, including specimen types other than sputum, were tested in parallel by both the in-house PCR and the Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis assay. After we resolved discrepant PCR results, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis assay were 66.33, 99.71, 94.36, and 97.66%, respectively. The corresponding values for the in-house PCR were 91.08, 99.85, 97.87, and 99.37%, respectively. For culture- and smear-positive specimens, the sensitivity of the Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis test was 96.42% (in-house PCR, 100%). If only smear-negative sputum specimens were considered, the Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis assay exhibited a sensitivity of 45.45% (in-house PCR, 63.63%) relative to that of culture. With a modified protocol for DNA extraction (washing of samples plus ultrasonication), both PCR methods performed better with gastric aspirates than with sputum samples (sensitivity of the Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis assay with smear-negative gastric aspirates, 70.00%; sensitivity of in-house PCR, 90.00%). With dithiothreitol being used for liquefaction of specimens in this study, the Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis assay exhibited an inhibition rate of 9.16%. In our view, the new Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis test (i) is well suited for typing of smear-positive specimens, (ii) may also be applied to gastric aspirates and other types of specimens if DNA extraction methods are modified appropriately, and (iii) exhibits a sensitivity with smear-negative sputum specimens which makes it recommendable that a minimum of three samples from the same patient be tested.

Indexed as

Bronchoalveolar Lavage FluidCulture MediaDNA, BacterialHumansMycobacterium tuberculosisPolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingSputumTuberculosis, PulmonaryUrineCulture MediaDNA, BacterialReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID9650955
PMCPMC104971

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.