↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic performance of smear microscopy and incremental yield of Xpert in detection of pulmonary tuberculosis in Rwanda

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic performance of smear microscopy and incremental yield of Xpert in detection of pulmonary tuberculosis in Rwanda
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-2009-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Claude Semuto Ngabonziza, Willy Ssengooba, Florence Mutua, Gabriela Torrea, Augustin Dushime, Michel Gasana, Emmanuel Andre, Schifra Uwamungu, Alaine Umubyeyi Nyaruhirira, Dufton Mwaengo, Claude Mambo Muvunyi

Abstract

Tuberculosis control program of Rwanda is currently phasing in light emitting diode-fluorescent microscopy (LED-FM) as an alternative to Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) smear microscopy. This, alongside the newly introduced Xpert (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is expected to improve diagnosis of tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin resistance in patients at health facilities. We assessed the accuracy of smear microscopy and the incremental sensitivity of Xpert at tuberculosis laboratories in Rwanda. This was a cross-sectional study involving four laboratories performing ZN and four laboratories performing LED-FM microscopy. The laboratories include four intermediate (ILs) and four peripheral (PLs) laboratories. After smear microscopy, the left-over of samples, of a single early-morning sputum from 648 participants, were tested using Xpert and mycobacterial culture as a reference standard. Sensitivity of each test was compared and the incremental sensitivity of Xpert after a negative smear was assessed. A total of 96 presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis participants were culture positive for M. tuberculosis. The overall sensitivity in PL of ZN was 55.1 % (40.2-69.3 %), LED-FM was 37 % (19.4-57.6 %) and Xpert was 77.6 % (66.6-86.4 %) whereas in ILs the same value for ZN was 58.3 % (27.7-84.8 %), LED-FM was 62.5 % (24.5-91.5 %) and Xpert was 90 (68.3-98.8 %). The sensitivity for all tests was significantly higher among HIV-negative individuals (all test p <0.05). The overall incremental sensitivity of Xpert over smear microscopy was 32.3 %; p < 0.0001. The incremental sensitivity of Xpert was statistically significant for both smear methods at PL (32.9 %; p = 0.001) but not at the ILs (30 %; p = 0.125) for both smear methods. Our study findings of the early implementation of the LED-FM did not reveal significant increment in sensitivity compared to the method being phased out (ZN). This study showed a significant incremental sensitivity for Xpert from both smear methods at peripheral centers where majority of TB patients are diagnosed. Overall our findings support the recommendation for Xpert as an initial diagnostic test in adults and children presumed to have TB.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 32%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 34 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,470,944
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,523
of 7,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,960
of 313,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#122
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.