2016
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF Versus AFB Smear and Culture to Identify Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Patients With Suspected Tuberculosis From Low and Higher Prevalence Settings

Abstract: In the United States, Xpert testing performed comparably to 2 higher-tuberculosis-prevalence settings. These data support the use of Xpert in the initial evaluation of tuberculosis suspects and in algorithms assessing need for respiratory isolation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
72
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
9
72
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall Xpert sensitivity was found not to be influenced by TB prevalence, but by smear status as described in a large meta-analysis performed with the Cochrane meta-analysis [29] and in a recent study by Luetkemeyer et al [30]. Our data support these findings, as performance of Xpert was limited by the high proportion of smear-negative samples.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Overall Xpert sensitivity was found not to be influenced by TB prevalence, but by smear status as described in a large meta-analysis performed with the Cochrane meta-analysis [29] and in a recent study by Luetkemeyer et al [30]. Our data support these findings, as performance of Xpert was limited by the high proportion of smear-negative samples.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Second, our algorithm for discontinuing isolation required not one negative test by Xpert as in the prior modeling study, but two negative tests by Xpert and/or smear on two separate days, as well as completion of sputum collection within isolation. These more stringent requirements were intended to provide a margin of safety because rare false-negative Xpert results have been reported 11,15 . For similar reasons, current guidelines require two negative Xpert results 17 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following introduction of a semi-automated, cartridge-based molecular-testing assay(GeneXpert MTB/RIF, Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California, USA; henceforth called “Xpert”) 9 that provides testing results in under two hours, we and others have identified the potential to substantially decrease the duration of isolation 1012 and hospital costs 13,14 required to evaluate inpatients for active TB. Based on high-quality diagnostic accuracy and modeling studies 10,11,1315 , regulatory authorities 16 and professional societies 17 have endorsed molecular-testing strategies employing one or two sputum Xpert tests, but little is known about their impact in routine practice. Therefore, we introduced an Xpert-based strategy to guide discontinuation of respiratory isolation for patients undergoing evaluation for active pulmonary TB at a public hospital.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the test is negative, it rules out TB quickly and prevents unnecessary isolation. If the test is positive, it can lead to early diagnosis, rapid initiation of treatment and shorter exposure time of active TB to other community members (17,18).…”
Section: Assessing the Potential For Long Distance Diagnostic Technologymentioning
confidence: 99%