Cited by 32Infectious Diseases and TuberculosisBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingBacterial Infections and Vaccines

Diagnostic accuracy of droplet digital PCR analysis of cerebrospinal fluid for tuberculous meningitis in adult patients

Open access
Li, Z., Pan, L., Lyu, L., Li, J., Jia, H., Du, B., Sun, Q., Zhang, Z.·2020·Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Abstract

Objectives Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is difficult to diagnose. Digital PCR (dPCR) is a novel method which can quantify trace nucleic acids. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dPCR analysis of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for TBM.Methods We collected CSF specimens from hospitalized TBM and non-TBM patients. Total CSF DNA was purified and the concentrations of Mycobacterium tuberculosis insert sequence 6110 (IS6110) and gyrase subunit B (gyrB) were quantified using droplet dPCR. The receiver operating characteristic curves of dPCR were established and the diagnostic performances were obtained. We also compared the sensitivity of dPCR with routine diagnostic tests.Results A total of 101 patients were recruited, 68 of whom suffered from TBM (26 definite, 34 probable and eight possible TBM) and 33 from non-TBM. The sensitivity of IS6110-dPCR assay for total TBM was higher than that of gyrB-dPCR assay (57.4% (44.8-69.3%) vs. 22.1% (12.9-33.8%)), and there was no significant difference for specificity between them (97.0% (84.2-99.9%) vs. 100% (89.4-100.0%)). The sensitivity of IS6110-dPCR in definite TBM was higher than that in probable and possible TBM (73.1% vs. 52.9% and 25.0%, respectively). IS6110-dPCR assay showed a higher sensitivity than smear microscopy (53.3% vs. 6.7%), mycobacterial culture (50.0% vs. 12.5%), IS6110-quantitative PCR (53.1% vs. 21.9%) and Xpert MTB/RIF (70.4% vs. 29.6%). Long anti-tuberculosis treatment time was found to be significantly associated with negative dPCR results.Conclusion CSF IS6110-dPCR assay is a rapid and sensitive molecular test, which has the potential to be used to enhance the diagnosis of TBM.

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 · 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.07.015

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Studies of IS6110 PCR for tuberculous meningitis reported sensitivity between 72% and 100% (median 91%) and specificity between 82% and 100% (median 99%).

    “Several studies, with sample sizes ranging from 13 to 102 definite tuberculous meningitis patients and 17 to 127 controls, studied the performance of IS6110 PCR and reported a sensitivity between 72% and 100% (median 91%) with a specificity between 82% and 100% (median 99%) (73–78).”

    From Molecular diagnostics in cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of central nervous system infections (2024) · cites this paper as [77]

    The Evaluation of the diagnostic performance section reports results for this paper’s own IS6110-dPCR study, not a range across several studies. Searches for the claimed sensitivity and specificity ranges and medians found no passage reporting them; the Discussion also does not give those figures. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Z., Pan, L., Lyu, L., Li, J., Jia, H., Du, B., Sun, Q., & Zhang, Z.
Affiliations
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • Chinese People's Liberation Army (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Z.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
213-219
ISSN
1198-743X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2962715452
Cited by
32
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Microbiology and Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program (PX2018055)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81702097)
  • National Science and Technology Major Project of China (2015ZX10004801-003, 2017ZX10201301-004, 2018ZX10731301-003-003)
  • Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Ascent Plan (DFL20181601)
  • Beijing Natural Science Foundation (7192038)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
Keywords
tuberculous meningitis, cerebrospinal fluid, droplet digital PCR, IS6110, gyrB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, smear microscopy, mycobacterial culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, molecular diagnosis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Bacterial Proteins, Cerebrospinal Fluid, DNA, Bacterial, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tuberculosis, Meningeal, Reproducibility of Results, DNA Gyrase, Young Adult, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

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