OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF for lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB). METHODS: We searched databases for published reports. We reviewed the studies and identified the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF with respect to a composite reference standard (CRS) and culture. We used a bivariate random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and used metaregression to analyze sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: 15 independent studies compared Xpert MTB/RIF with CRS while 21 comparing it with culture were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF were 79% and 98% compared to that of CRS, respectively, and 84% and 91% compared to that of culture, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples versus CRS were 80% and 96%, whereas those against culture were 90% and 89%, respectively. The percentages while working with tissue samples versus CRS were 76% and 100%, respectively, whereas those against culture were 76% and 92%, respectively. There was no significant difference in diagnostic efficiency among the types of specimen. CONCLUSIONS: Xpert MTB/RIF demonstrates good diagnostic efficiency for LNTB and is not related to the type of specimen, obtained via different routes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: