ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Testing tongue swab samples by Cepheid Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra: Comparison of two protocols applied to samples from persons with low-bacillary load TB.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tongue swabs (TS) are novel non-sputum specimens for molecular diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). Analysis of swabs by using Cepheid Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra® (Xpert Ultra) is less sensitive than the use of certain manual qPCR methods but is desirable given the widespread use and familiarity of Xpert Ultra. This study evaluated an easy-to-use protocol for analyzing TS by Xpert Ultra. TS samples from symptomatic South African patients were previously collected and tested by Xpert Ultra using a protocol that requires a heating block (termed Heat+TE). Replicate, paired samples from the same patients were tested by a newly reported method that does not require heating (termed 2:1 SR). The diagnostic accuracy of the two methods was compared. Because the sensitivity of TS testing is lowest in patients with low sputum bacillary loads, the resolving power of this paired comparison was maximized by prioritizing samples from such participants (N=108), 88 of whom were TB-positive by sputum microbiological reference standard (MRS) and 20 were TB-negative. Within this sample set, the Heat+TE method was 42.5% (38/88; 95CI 33-54%) sensitive and the 2:1 SR method was 52.3% (46/88; 95CI 41-63%) sensitive relative to sputum MRS. Both methods were 100% (20/20; 95% CI 83-100%) specific. A secondary analysis compared the sensitivities of single-sample versus dual-sample testing within a cohort (N=241) that included both high- and low-bacillary load participants. Testing of a single sample was 75.5% (182/241; 95CI 70-81%) sensitive relative to sputum MRS, whereas dual sampling was 81.3% (196/241; 95CI 76-86%) sensitive.
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.