SynthesisNarra J2024
Diagnostic accuracy of GeneXpert in the diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Narra J, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of an all-oral delamanid-containing regimen in the treatment of multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis complicated by extrapulmonary tuberculosis: Four case reports and review of the literature.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2026Article
- From serum inflammatory markers to fluid, tissue, and molecular assays: current advances in the laboratory diagnosis of bone and joint infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Cervical spinal tuberculosis: Consistent imaging clues for early recognition from a case series.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Heterogeneity in longitudinal medication adherence patterns among patients with spinal tuberculosis: a latent class analysis using multi-timepoint follow-up data and associations with clinical outcomes.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Bone and joint tuberculosis: clinical manifestation, diagnostic techniques and drug resistance analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tuberculosis remains a significant global health issue, with spinal tuberculosis being a severe form of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Despite the high morbidity associated with spinal tuberculosis, effective and rapid diagnostic methods are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the GeneXpert compared to other microbiological methods in diagnosing spinal tuberculosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Six databases (PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Central) were searched for relevant studies as of August 31, 2023. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, focusing on patients diagnosed with spinal tuberculosis and comparing GeneXpert to microbiological culture, acid-fast bacilli (AFB) staining, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment, and the meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-DiSc 2.0. Fourteen studies comprising retrospective cohort, prospective cohort, and cross-sectional designs were included. GeneXpert demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 92% (85-96%) and specificity of 71% (51-86%) compared to culture. AFB smear had the highest specificity at 80% (70- 88%) but the lowest sensitivity at 27% (20-35%). The PCR had sensitivity and specificity of 83% (67-92%) and 58% (31-81%), respectively. Substantial heterogeneity was noted across the studies. This study highlighted that GeneXpert had high sensitivity and moderate specificity in diagnosing spinal tuberculosis, making it an alternative to conventional methods. However, further validation through larger, interventional studies is necessary to standardize its use in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.