ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Stool processing methods for Xpert Ultra testing in childhood tuberculosis: A prospective, multi-country accuracy study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Centrifuge-free processing methods support stool Xpert Ultra testing for childhood tuberculosis (TB), but there are limited data on their accuracy, acceptability and usability. Methods: We conducted a prospective evaluation of stool Xpert Ultra in India, South Africa, and Uganda with three methods: Stool Processing Kit (SPK), Simple One-Step (SOS), and Optimized Sucrose Flotation (OSF). Children <15 years old with presumptive TB had respiratory specimen testing with Xpert Ultra and culture. Stool was tested using Xpert Ultra after processing with each method. We compared the accuracy of each method to a microbiological reference standard (MRS) and a composite reference standard (CRS). We surveyed the laboratory staff to assess acceptability and usability of the methods. Results: We included 607 children, of whom the median age was 3.5 years (IQR 1.3-7), 48% were female, and 15.5% were HIV positive. Against the MRS, the sensitivities of SPK, SOS and OSF were 36.9% (95% CI 28.6-45.8), 38.6% (95% CI 17.2-51), and 31.3% (95% CI 20.2-44.1), respectively. The specificities of SPK, SOS and OSF were 98.2% (95% CI 96.4-99.3), 97.3% (95% CI 93.7-99.1) and 97.1% (95% CI 93.3-99), respectively. Laboratory staff reported that the methods were acceptable and usable, but SOS was most feasible to implement in a peripheral facility. Sensitivity increased among children who were culture-positive (55-77.3%) and was low (13-16.7%) against the CRS. Conclusions: Stool processing methods for Xpert Ultra were acceptable, usable, and performed similarly, with highest sensitivity among children with culture-positive TB.
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.