Cited by 245Tuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyInfectious Diseases and TuberculosisDiagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 212 of the 218 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Xpert ® MTB/RIF assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended, rapid, automated, nucleic acid amplification assay that is used widely for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum specimens. This Cochrane Review assessed the accuracy of Xpert in extrapulmonary specimens. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert a) for extrapulmonary TB by site of disease in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB; and b) for rifampicin resistance in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry, and ProQuest up to 7 August 2017 without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of Xpert in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. We included TB meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, and disseminated TB. We used culture as the reference standard. For pleural TB, we also included a composite reference standard, which defined a positive result as the presence of granulomatous inflammation or a positive culture result. For rifampicin resistance, we used culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus as the reference standard. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. We determined pooled predicted sensitivity and specificity for TB, grouped by type of extrapulmonary specimen, and for rifampicin resistance. For TB detection, we used a bivariate random-effects model. Recognizing that use of culture may lead to misclassification of cases of extrapulmonary TB as 'not TB' owing to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, we adjusted accuracy estimates by applying a latent class meta-analysis model. For rifampicin resistance detection, we performed univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. We used theoretical populations with an assumed prevalence to provide illustrative numbers of patients with false positive and false negative results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 unique studies that evaluated 16,213 specimens for detection of extrapulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance. We identified only one study that evaluated the newest test version, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), for TB meningitis. Fifty studies (76%) took place in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains and was high or unclear for the reference standard domain (most of these studies decontaminated sterile specimens before culture inoculation). Regarding applicability, in the patient selection domain, we scored high or unclear concern for most studies because either patients were evaluated exclusively as inpatients at tertiary care centres, or we were not sure about the clinical settings.Pooled Xpert sensitivity (defined by culture) varied across different types of specimens (31% in pleural tissue to 97% in bone or joint fluid); Xpert sensitivity was > 80% in urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue. Pooled Xpert specificity (defined by culture) varied less than sensitivity (82% in bone or joint tissue to 99% in pleural fluid and urine). Xpert specificity was ≥ 98% in cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, urine, and peritoneal fluid.Xpert testing in cerebrospinal fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) against culture were 71.1% (60.9% to 80.4%) and 98.0% (97.0% to 98.8%), respectively (29 studies, 3774 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have TB meningitis on culture, 89 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 18 (20%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 911 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have TB (false-negatives).For TB meningitis, ultra sensitivity and specificity against culture (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 90% (55% to 100%) and 90% (83% to 95%), respectively (one study, 129 participants).Xpert testing in pleural fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 50.9% (39.7% to 62.8%) and 99.2% (98.2% to 99.7%), respectively (27 studies, 4006 specimens; low-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 150 have pleural TB on culture, 83 would be Xpert-positive: of these, seven (8%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 917 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 74 (8%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing in urineXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 82.7% (69.6% to 91.1%) a

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd012768.pub2

Cites

212 of 213 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 218 references

5 of the 218 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Jing, 2017, Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF in detection of pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases in China, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, 10, 4847
  2. Peñata, 2016, Molecular diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis and sensitivity to rifampicin with an automated real-time method, Biomedica, 36 Suppl 1, 78
  3. Bemba, 2017, Performance of GeneXpert MTB / RIF in the diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis in Brazzaville: a preliminary report, Health Sciences and Diseases, 18, 21
  4. Gascoyne-Binzi, 2012, Comparison of on-demand PCR testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis with culture and batched PCR, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 18, 543
  5. Ioannidis, 2010, Tuberculosis resistance detection rate to the two main anti-TB drugs, isoniazid and rifampicin, using molecular techniques: experience of the Hellenic National Reference Center for Mycobacteria. [Greek], Acta Microbiologica Hellenica, 55, 175
  6. Mishra, 2017, Study of diagnostic utility of Xpert MTB/RIF test on pleural fluid in the evaluation of patients presenting with pleural tuberculosis in high prevalence setting, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 195, A2088
  7. Veritas Health Innovation Covidence systematic review software. Available at www.covidence.org 2017
  8. Gupta-Wright A Corbett EL van Oosterhout JJ Wilson DK Grint D Alufandika-Moyo M Urine-based screening for tuberculosis: a randomized trial in HIV-positive inpatients (the STAMP trial) Conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections (CROI). www.croiconference.org/sessions/urine-based-screening-tuberculosis-randomized-trial-hiv-positive-inpatients Boston 2018 38LB
  9. Macaskill P Gatsonis C Deeks JJ Harbord RM Takwoingi Y Chapter 10: Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, C Gatsonis (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2010 http://srdta.cochrane.org/
  10. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) 2014
  11. Schünemann HJ Oxman AD Gunn EV Higgins JPT Deeks JL Glasziou P Chapter 11. Presenting results and "Summary of findings" tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 Available from handbook.cochrane.org
  12. Boyle, 2017, Tuberculosis Diagnostics Technology and Market Landscape
  13. World Health Organization, 2017, Global tuberculosis report

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 244

Metadata

Authors
Kohli, M., Schiller, I., Dendukuri, N., Dheda, K., Denkinger, C. M., Schumacher, S. G., & Steingart, K. R.
Affiliations
  • McGill University (CA)
  • McGill University Health Centre (CA)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • FIND (CH)
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Steingart, Karen R
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-27
Volume
8
Pages
CD012768-CD012768
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2748797449
Cited by
245
References
218
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis
Keywords
Xpert MTB/RIF, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, rifampicin resistance, Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex, diagnostic accuracy, tuberculous meningitis, pleural tuberculosis, tuberculous lymphadenitis, osteoarticular tuberculosis, urogenital tuberculosis, tuberculous pericarditis, tuberculous peritonitis, nucleic acid amplification tests, latent class analysis, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Antibiotics, Antitubercular, Bacterial Proteins, False Negative Reactions, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Reference Standards, Rifampin, DNA-Directed RNA Polymerases, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tuberculosis, Tuberculosis, Meningeal, Drug Resistance, Bacterial

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review