Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 338

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children admitted to hospital in Cape Town, South Africa: a descriptive study

Open access
Nicol, Mark P, Workman, Lesley, Isaacs, Washiefa, Munro, Jacinta, Black, Faye, Eley, Brian, Boehme, Catharina C, Zemanay, Widaad, Zar, Heather J·2011·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends that Xpert MTB/RIF replaces smear microscopy for initial diagnosis of suspected HIV-associated tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis, but no data exist for its use in children. We aimed to assess the accuracy of the test for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children in an area with high tuberculosis and HIV prevalences. METHODS: In this prospective, descriptive study, we enrolled children aged 15 years or younger who had been admitted to one of two hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa, with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis between Feb 19, 2009, and Nov 30, 2010. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of MTB/RIF and concentrated, fluorescent acid-fast smear with a reference standard of liquid culture from two sequential induced sputum specimens (primary analysis). RESULTS: 452 children (median age 19·4 months, IQR 11·1-46·2) had at least one induced sputum specimen; 108 children (24%) had HIV infection. 27 children (6%) had a positive smear result, 70 (16%) had a positive culture result, and 58 (13%) had a positive MTB/RIF test result. With mycobacterial culture as the reference standard, MTB/RIF tests when done on two induced sputum samples detected twice as many cases (75·9%, 95% CI 64·5-87·2) as did smear microscopy (37·9%, 25·1-50·8), detecting all of 22 smear-positive cases and 22 of 36 (61·1%, 44·4-77·8) smear-negative cases. For smear-negative cases, the incremental increase in sensitivity from testing a second specimen was 27·8% for MTB/RIF, compared with 13·8% for culture. The specificity of MTB/RIF was 98·8% (97·6-99·9). MTB/RIF results were available in median 1 day (IQR 0-4) compared with median 12 days (9-17) for culture (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: MTB/RIF testing of two induced sputum specimens is warranted as the first-line diagnostic test for children with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, the National Health Laboratory Service Research Trust, the Medical Research Council of South Africa, and Wellcome Trust.

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 · 10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70167-0

Cites

2 of 2 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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 338

Metadata

Authors
Nicol, M. P., Workman, L., Isaacs, W., Munro, J., Black, F., Eley, B., Boehme, C. C., Zemanay, W., & Zar, H. J.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-11
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
819-824
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089866381
Cited by
338
References
2
FWCI
26.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children admitted to hospital in Cape Town, South Africa: a descriptive study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70167-0
The paper
Nicol, M. P., Workman, L., Isaacs, W., Munro, J., Black, F., Eley, B., Boehme, C. C., Zemanay, W., & Zar, H. J. (2011). Accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children admitted to hospital in Cape Town, South Africa: a descriptive study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70167-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.