ArticleIJTLD open2025
Accuracy of Truenat™ MTB Plus for the diagnosis of pulmonary TB.
Article in IJTLD open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy study of the multiplex Truenat MTB Ultima/COVID-19 assay for simultaneous detection of Tuberculosis and SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19).PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of the TrueNat™ MTB plus assay for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis in adults.PloS one · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTruenat™ is a WHO-recommended rapid molecular test for diagnosing TB and detecting rifampicin resistance, whose performance has been evaluated in a few high TB burden countries.
methodsA prospective multicentre study was conducted in Brazil to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of Truenat MTB Plus compared to Xpert
resultsAmong 283 participants, 112 (39.6%) had culture-positive pulmonary TB. The sensitivity and specificity of Truenat MTB Plus were respectively 72.7% (95% CI 63.41-80.78) and 99.4% (95% CI 96.71-99.98), compared to 78.4% (95% CI 69.56-85.63) and 99.4% (95% CI 96.67-99.98) for Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra. In 89 people living with HIV (PLHIV), Truenat MTB Plus showed a sensitivity of 45.0% (95% CI 23.06-68.47) and specificity of 100.0% (95% CI 95.64-100.00). Among 71 patients previously treated for TB, Truenat MTB Plus showed sensitivity and specificity of respectively 79.3% (95% CI 60.28-92.01) and 97.5% (95% CI 86.84-99.94). Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra detected rifampicin resistance in 11/88 samples (12.5%) vs 9/72 (12.5%) with Truenat MTB Plus.
conclusionThe Truenat MTB Plus performance was comparable to Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra. Both tests demonstrated lower sensitivity in PLHIV.
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.