The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Commercial Nucleic-Acid Amplification Tests for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Respiratory Specimens: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Hundreds of studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of nucleic-acid amplification tests (NAATs) for tuberculosis (TB). Commercial tests have been shown to give more consistent results than in-house assays. Previous meta-analyses have found high specificity but low and highly variable estimates of sensitivity. However, reasons for variability in study results have not been adequately explored. We performed a meta-analysis on the accuracy of commercial NAATs to diagnose pulmonary TB and meta-regression to identify factors that are associated with higher accuracy. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 2948 citations from searching the literature. We found 402 articles that met our eligibility criteria. In the final analysis, 125 separate studies from 105 articles that reported NAAT results from respiratory specimens were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (range 0.36-1.00) and the pooled specificity was 0.97 (range 0.54-1.00). However, both measures were significantly heterogeneous (p<.001). We performed subgroup and meta-regression analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity. Even after stratifying by type of commercial test, we could not account for the variability. In the meta-regression, the threshold effect was significant (p = .01) and the use of other respiratory specimens besides sputum was associated with higher accuracy. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The sensitivity and specificity estimates for commercial NAATs in respiratory specimens were highly variable, with sensitivity lower and more inconsistent than specificity. Thus, summary measures of diagnostic accuracy are not clinically meaningful. The use of different cut-off values and the use of specimens other than sputum could explain some of the observed heterogeneity. Based on these observations, commercial NAATs alone cannot be recommended to replace conventional tests for diagnosing pulmonary TB. Improvements in diagnostic accuracy, particularly sensitivity, need to be made in order for this expensive technology to be worthwhile and beneficial in low-resource countries.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Schmid, C. H. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008 · Cited by 2,517 · cited 1×
“The REM gives more conservative estimates with wider confidence intervals because it assumes that the meta-analysis includes only a sample of all possible studies [19,132,133].”
BackgroundThe diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance
Glas, A. S., Lijmer, J. G., Prins, M. H., Bonsel, G. J., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00177-x · Cited by 2,261
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta‐Analysis in Context
(2001) · doi:10.1002/9780470693926 · Cited by 1,693
Pai, M., Flores, L. L., Pai, N., Hubbard, A., Riley, L. W., & Colford, J. M. (2003) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(03)00772-2 · Cited by 384
Self-citation
Cited by
Mori, Y., & Notomi, T. (2009) · Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1007/s10156-009-0669-9 · Cited by 1,015
Lewinsohn, D. M., Leonard, M. K., LoBue, P. A., Cohn, D. L., Daley, C. L., Desmond, E., Keane, J., Lewinsohn, D. A., Loeffler, A. M., Mazurek, G. H., et al. (2017) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciw694 · Cited by 992
“The second meta-analysis reported an overall sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 97% and did not stratify according to the results of AFB smear microscopy [136].”
ResultSelf-citationRapid Molecular Detection of Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis by the Automated GeneXpert MTB/RIF System
Hillemann, D., Rüsch-Gerdes, S., Boehme, C., & Richter, E. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.02268-10 · Cited by 413
Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults
Steingart, K. R., Sohn, H., Schiller, I., Kloda, L. A., Boehme, C. C., Pai, M., & Dendukuri, N. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009593.pub2 · Cited by 253
Self-citationXpert MTB/RIF test for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance
Sohn, H., Pai, M., Dendukuri, N., Kloda, L. A., Boehme, C. C., & Steingart, K. R. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009593 · Cited by 20
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ling, D. I., Flores, L. L., Riley, L. W., & Pai, M.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2008-02-06
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e1536
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2056242391
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 14.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Commercial Nucleic-Acid Amplification Tests for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Respiratory Specimens: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0001536
- The paper
- Ling, D. I., Flores, L. L., Riley, L. W., & Pai, M. (2008). Commercial Nucleic-Acid Amplification Tests for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Respiratory Specimens: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001536
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.