“… 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 21 – 23 , 26 – 58 Additionally, a technical report published by WHO was identified and included ( figure 1 ). 19 QUADAS-2 assessment of the clinical studies showed that the risk of bias was unclear for 19 (68%) of 28 studies 19 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 39 , 44 , 46 – 49 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 58 due to a possible absence of masked interpretation of mutations; risk of bias was high for 11 studies 23 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 53 that used a phenotypic DST method not approved by WHO ( appendix 1 pp 3–7). According to the QUADAS-2 assessment, the level of concern regarding applicability was classified as high for six (21%) of the 28 clinical studies 23 , 35 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 51 because they did not report on both atpE and Rv0678 genes.…”