For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
11
views
22
references
 Top references
cited by
17
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      178
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diagnostic accuracy evaluation of the conventional and molecular tests for Spinal Tuberculosis in a cohort, head-to-head study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Early diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis (TB) is hampered by the flaws of conventional tests. The aim of this study was to assess the value of new and existing molecular tests in a prospective, head-to-head cohort study. Specimens were consecutively collected from spinal TB suspects in four hospitals in Beijing, China. Smear, culture, histopathology, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), and MeltPro TB assays were performed in parallel using the same specimen from each patient. Drug-susceptibility testing (DST) was conducted on the isolates recovered. In total, 438 suspects were recruited; 319 of them were diagnosed with spinal TB according to the composite reference standard (CRS), which was composed of clinical, laboratory, histopathological, and radiological examinations and 18 months of follow-up. Based on conventional testing, 74.29% of patients were classified as confirmed cases, which increased to 90.6% when Xpert outcomes were integrated. Further, 76.60% of probable and 45.71% of possible cases were re-classified as confirmed cases with Xpert. Xpert (85.27%) produced higher sensitivity than histopathology (73.04%), MeltPro TB (57.68%), culture (51.72%) and smear (24.45%) (all P <0.001). Xpert was 100% concordant with phenotypic DST regarding rifampicin resistance detection. The sensitivity and specificity of MeltPro TB for rifampicin resistance detection were 100% and 97.96%, respectively, and 95.00% and 93.88% for isoniazid resistance detection. New molecular tests demonstrated excellent efficiency for spinal TB diagnosis in this cohort study, so their application as initial diagnostic tools would greatly increase the proportion of confirmed cases and dramatically reduce the delay of appropriate treatment. An updated laboratory testing algorithm of the disease is desirable.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Karen Steingart, Nandini Dendukuri, Madhukar Pai … (2014)
          Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is endorsed for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of Xpert for the detection of extrapulmonary TB. We searched multiple databases to October 15, 2013. We determined the accuracy of Xpert compared with culture and a composite reference standard (CRS). We grouped data by sample type and performed meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model. We assessed sources of heterogeneity using meta-regression for predefined covariates. We identified 18 studies involving 4461 samples. Sample processing varied greatly among the studies. Xpert sensitivity differed substantially between sample types. In lymph node tissues or aspirates, Xpert pooled sensitivity was 83.1% (95% CI 71.4-90.7%) versus culture and 81.2% (95% CI 72.4-87.7%) versus CRS. In cerebrospinal fluid, Xpert pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 59.0-92.2%) against culture and 62.8% (95% CI 47.7-75.8%) against CRS. In pleural fluid, pooled sensitivity was 46.4% (95% CI 26.3-67.8%) against culture and 21.4% (95% CI 8.8-33.9%) against CRS. Xpert pooled specificity was consistently >98.7% against CRS across different sample types. Based on this systematic review, the World Health Organization now recommends Xpert over conventional tests for diagnosis of TB in lymph nodes and other tissues, and as the preferred initial test for diagnosis of TB meningitis. ©ERS 2014.
          Article 0 comments Cited 178 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Xpert MTB/RIF: a new pillar in diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis?

            Catharina Boehme, David Alland, Camilla Rodrigues … (2011)
            Approximately 10 to 15% of tuberculosis (TB) cases in India are estimated to have extrapulmonary disease, and due to a lack of diagnostic means, they often remain untreated. The early detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and multidrug resistance is a priority in TB diagnosis to improve the successful treatment rate of TB and reduce transmission. The Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) test, recently endorsed by the World Health Organization for the detection of pulmonary TB, was evaluated to test its utility in 547 patients with suspected extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Five hundred forty-seven extrapulmonary specimens were split and processed simultaneously for both culture (solid and liquid) and Xpert testing. For culture, the sensitivity was low, 53% (150/283 specimens). Xpert sensitivity and specificity results were assessed in comparison to a composite reference standard made up of smear and culture results and clinical, radiological, and histological findings. The sensitivity of the Xpert assay was 81% (228/283 specimens) (64% [89/138] for smear-negative cases and 96% [139/145] for smear-positive cases), with a specificity of 99.6%. The sensitivity was found to be high for the majority of specimen types (63 to 100%) except for cerebrospinal fluid, the sensitivity of which was 29% (2/7 specimens). The Xpert test correctly identified 98% of phenotypic rifampin (RIF)-resistant cases and 94% of phenotypic RIF-susceptible cases. Sequencing of the 6 discrepant samples resolved 3 of them, resulting in an increased specificity of 98%. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that the Xpert test also shows good potential for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary TB and that its ease of use makes it applicable for countries where TB is endemic.
            Article 0 comments Cited 115 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical validation of Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis.

              Enrico Tortoli, Cristina Russo, Claudio Piersimoni … (2012)
              Extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) accounts for more than 20% of tuberculosis (TB) cases. Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a fully automated amplification system, for which excellent results in the diagnosis of pulmonary TB in highly endemic countries have been recently reported. We aimed to assess the performance of the Xpert system in diagnosing EPTB in a low incidence setting. We investigated with Xpert a large number of consecutive extrapulmonary clinical specimens (1,476, corresponding to 1,068 patients) including both paediatric (494) and adult samples. We found, in comparison with a reference standard consisting of combination of culture and clinical diagnosis of TB, an overall sensitivity and specificity of 81.3% and 99.8% for Xpert, while the sensitivity of microscopy was 48%. For biopsies, urines, pus and cerebrospinal fluids the sensitivity exceeded 85%, while it was slightly under 80% for gastric aspirates. It was, in contrast, lower than 50% for cavitary fluids. High sensitivity and specificity (86.9% and 99.7%, respectively) were also obtained for paediatric specimens. Although the role of culture remains central in the microbiological diagnosis of EPTB, the sensitivity of Xpert in rapidly diagnosing the disease makes it a much better choice compared to smear microscopy. The ability to rule out the disease still remains suboptimal.
              Article 0 comments Cited 99 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Shibing Qin: +86-10-89509308 , qinsb@sina.com
                Hairong Huang: +86-10-89509159 , huanghairong@tb123.org
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Emerg Microbes Infect
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Emerg Microbes Infect
                Title: Emerging Microbes & Infections
                Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 2222-1751
                Publication date (Electronic): 20 June 2018
                Publication date PMC-release: 20 June 2018
                Publication date Collection: 2018
                Volume: 7
                Electronic Location Identifier: 109
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0369 153X, GRID grid.24696.3f, National Clinical Laboratory on Tuberculosis, Beijing Key Laboratory on Drug-resistant Tuberculosis Research, Beijing Chest Hospital, , Capital Medical University, Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Institute, ; Beijing, China
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0369 153X, GRID grid.24696.3f, Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Bone and Joint Tuberculosis Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing Chest Hospital, , Capital Medical University, Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Institute, ; Beijing, China
                Article
                Publisher ID: 114
                DOI: 10.1038/s41426-018-0114-1
                PMC ID: 6008291
                PubMed ID: 29921972
                SO-VID: b95a0744-b251-4586-916d-3b3f9ff9e4b5
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2018
                License:

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                Date received : 8 March 2018
                Date revision received : 15 May 2018
                Date accepted : 17 May 2018
                Categories
                Subject: Article
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2018

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content178

                See all similar

                Cited by17

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors293

                See all reference authors