↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pathological samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Effectiveness of real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pathological samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0608-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel O. Babafemi, Benny P. Cherian, Lee Banting, Graham A. Mills, Kandala Ngianga

Abstract

Rapid and accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) is key to manage the disease and to control and prevent its transmission. Many established diagnostic methods suffer from low sensitivity or delay of timely results and are inadequate for rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in pulmonary and extra-pulmonary clinical samples. This study examined whether a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay, with a turn-a-round time of 2 h, would prove effective for routine detection of MTB by clinical microbiology laboratories. A systematic literature search was performed for publications in any language on the detection of MTB in pathological samples by RT-PCR assay. The following sources were used MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Citation Index, Web of Science, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, grey literature, World Health Organization and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention websites. Forty-six studies met set inclusion criteria. Generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) were calculated for overall accuracy and bivariate meta-regression model was used for meta-analysis. Summary estimates for pulmonary TB (31 studies) were as follows: sensitivity 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.83), specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-0.99), positive likelihood ratio 43.00 (28.23-64.81), negative likelihood ratio 0.16 (0.12-0.20), diagnostic odds ratio 324.26 (95% CI 189.08-556.09) and area under curve 0.99. Summary estimates for extra-pulmonary TB (25 studies) were as follows: sensitivity 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.72), specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-0.99), positive likelihood ratio 29.82 (17.86-49.78), negative likelihood ratio 0.33 (0.26-0.42), diagnostic odds ratio 125.20 (95% CI 65.75-238.36) and area under curve 0.96. RT-PCR assay demonstrated a high degree of sensitivity for pulmonary TB and good sensitivity for extra-pulmonary TB. It indicated a high degree of specificity for ruling in TB infection from sampling regimes. This was acceptable, but may better as a rule out add-on diagnostic test. RT-PCR assays demonstrate both a high degree of sensitivity in pulmonary samples and rapidity of detection of TB which is an important factor in achieving effective global control and for patient management in terms of initiating early and appropriate anti-tubercular therapy. PROSPERO CRD42015027534 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 22%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 16 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,258,190
of 15,915,969 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#800
of 1,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,623
of 323,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#72
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,915,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 323,473 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.