ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology1998
Comparative evaluation of two commercial assays for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in respiratory specimens.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Rapid detection of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex by use of quenching probe PCR (geneCube).Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Evaluation of the Cobas TaqMan MTB test for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Review
- Relevance of commercial amplification methods for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in clinical samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Review
- Modern laboratory diagnosis of mycobacterial infections.Journal of clinical pathology · 2000Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two commercial systems for the amplification and detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis directly from respiratory samples were compared. The Roche Cobas Amplicor MTB Test and the Roche manual Amplicor MTB Test (Roche Diagnostic Systems, USA) were applied to 755 decontaminated respiratory specimens collected from 470 patients. Results were compared with those of acid-fast staining and culture. A total of 251 specimens were collected from 156 patients diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, including 28 specimens corresponding to 13 patients that were receiving antituberculous treatment. Given the overall positivity rate of 33.2% (251/755), the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 92.4, 100, 100, and 96.5%, respectively, for the Cobas Amplicor MTB Test and 90.8, 100, 100, and 95.8%, respectively, for the Amplicor MTB Test. For 204 (81.3%) smear positive specimens and 47 (19.7%) smear negative specimens, the sensitivity values were 100 and 59.6%, respectively, for the Cobas Amplicor MTB Test and 100 and 51%, respectively, for the Amplicor MTB Test. There were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity or specificity between the two assays and culture (p>0.05). The overall results of both assays were concordant for 99.5% of the samples. It is concluded that although both nucleic acid amplification methods are rapid and specific for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens, the Cobas Amplicor MTB Test appears to be slightly more sensitive than the Amplicor MTB Test when smear negative specimens are investigated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9665295What 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.