Cited by 485Tuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyMycobacterium research and diagnosisInfectious Diseases and Tuberculosis

Evaluation of the analytical performance of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay

Open access
Blakemore, Robert, Story, Elizabeth, Helb, Danica, Kop, JoAnn, Banada, Padmapriya, Owens, Michelle R., Chakravorty, Soumitesh, Jones, Martin +1 more·2010·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

We performed the first studies of analytic sensitivity, analytic specificity, and dynamic range for the new Xpert MTB/RIF assay, a nucleic acid amplification-based diagnostic system that detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampin (RIF) resistance in under 2 h. The sensitivity of the assay was tested with 79 phylogenetically and geographically diverse M. tuberculosis isolates, including 42 drug-susceptible isolates and 37 RIF-resistant isolates containing 13 different rpoB mutations or mutation combinations. The specificity of the assay was tested with 89 nontuberculosis bacteria, fungi, and viruses. The Xpert MTB/RIF assay correctly identified all 79 M. tuberculosis isolates and correctly excluded all 89 nontuberculosis isolates. RIF resistance was correctly identified in all 37 resistant isolates and in none of the 42 susceptible isolates. Dynamic range was assessed by adding 10(2) to 10(7) CFU of M. tuberculosis into M. tuberculosis-negative sputum samples. The assay showed a log-linear relationship between cycle threshold and input CFU over the entire concentration range. Resistance detection in the presence of different mixtures of RIF-resistant and RIF-susceptible DNA was assessed. Resistance detection was dependent on the particular mutation and required between 65% and 100% mutant DNA to be present in the sample for 95% certainty of resistance detection. Finally, we studied whether assay specificity could be affected by cross-contaminating amplicons generated by the GenoType MTBDRplus assay. M. tuberculosis was not detected until at least 10(8) copies of an MTBDRplus amplicon were spiked into 1 ml of sputum, suggesting that false-positive results would be unlikely to occur.

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 · 10.1128/jcm.00128-10

Cites

21 of 21 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?

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
Blakemore, R., Story, E., Helb, D., Kop, J., Banada, P., Owens, M. R., Chakravorty, S., Jones, M., & Alland, D.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (US)
  • Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, and Ruy V. Lourenço Center for the Study of Emerging and Reemerging Pathogens, New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Cepheid (United States) (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2010-07
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
2495-2501
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2132658179
Cited by
485
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 28
FWCI
24.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R41AI052523, R42AI052523, R42-AI52523, R41-AI52523)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Mycobacterium research and diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
Keywords
Xpert MTB/RIF, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, rifampicin resistance, rpoB mutations, diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, dynamic range, cross-contamination, GenoType MTBDRplus, sputum
MeSH terms
Antibiotics, Antitubercular, Bacterial Proteins, DNA, Bacterial, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Rifampin, DNA-Directed RNA Polymerases, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sputum, Reproducibility of Results, Linear Models, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques

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