These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of GeneXpert MTB/RIF for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis at peripheral tuberculosis clinics.
    Author: Shao Y, Peng H, Chen C, Zhu T, Ji M, Jiang W, Zhu W, Zhai XJ, Lu W.
    Journal: Microb Pathog; 2017 Apr; 105():260-263. PubMed ID: 28258004.
    Abstract:
    Tuberculosis is one of the most common infectious diseases in China, while delayed patient finding obstructed disease control, especially for smear-negative patients. The current study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of GeneXpert MTB/RIF compared with conventional methods in the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis patients. A total of 295 spot sputum samples from confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis patients were evaluated from September 2014 to June 2015. Each sample was examined by acid-fast bacillus smear microscopy, culture and GeneXpert MTB/RIF. The sputum culture on Löwenstein-Jensen (L-J) was considered as the gold-standard. After testing by smear, 68.81% (203/295) was negative and 31.19% (92/295) was positive. As the gold-standard, L-J culture detected 37.97% (112/295) positive of all specimens, while the positivity for GeneXpert MTB/RIF was 46.44% (137/295). Compared with L-J culture, the combined sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for GeneXpert MTB/RIF were 94.64%, 82.97%, 77.37% and 96.18% respectively. For smear-negative specimens, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for GeneXpert MTB/RIF were 96.00%, 83.05%, 44.44% and 99.32%; while for smear-positive specimens, the corresponding accuracy values were 94.25%, 80.00%, 98.80% and 44.44%. The findings of study indicated that GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay demonstrated a high sensitivity in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis compared to smear method and a high NPV among smear negative patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]