Cited by 99Tuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyInfectious Diseases and TuberculosisDiagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis

Diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for extra-pulmonary tuberculosis: a meta-analysis

Penz, E., Boffa, J., Roberts, D. J., Fisher, D., Cooper, R., Ronksley, P. E., James, M. T.·2015·The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Xpert(®) MTB/RIF is a commercially available nucleic acid amplification test developed for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for the detection of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases from January 2010 to 15 August 2014 for studies of diagnostic performance in which Xpert was examined against culture for patients with clinically suspected EPTB. Bivariate random effects models were used to provide pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were identified, with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of respectively 77% (95%CI 66-85) and 97% (95%CI 94-98). Substantial variations existed between study estimates of sensitivity (I(2) = 99%) and specificity (I(2) = 96%). Among site-specific estimates for lymph, pleural fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, gastro-intestinal and urinary samples, the pooled sensitivity was lower in pleural fluid (37%, 95%CI 26-50, meta-regression P < 0.001) and higher in lymph node samples (87%, 95%CI 75-95, meta-regression P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Xpert has high specificity but limited sensitivity for the detection of EPTB. Although positive Xpert test results may be useful in rapidly identifying EPTB cases, negative test results provide less certainty for ruling out disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5588/ijtld.14.0262

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Penz, E., Boffa, J., Roberts, D. J., Fisher, D., Cooper, R., Ronksley, P. E., & James, M. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Foothills Medical Centre (CA)
  • Royal Alexandra Hospital (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
Venue
The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
Published
2015-03-01
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
278-284
ISSN
1027-3719 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998310606
Cited by
97
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis
Keywords
Xpert MTB/RIF, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, diagnostic accuracy, nucleic acid amplification tests, sensitivity and specificity, pleural fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, gastrointestinal tuberculosis, urinary tuberculosis, cultural comparison
MeSH terms
Antibiotics, Antitubercular, Humans, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tuberculosis, Pulmonary, 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