Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 1;26(5):441-445.
doi: 10.5588/ijtld.21.0480.

Xpert Ultra in diagnosing extrapulmonary TB: accuracy and trace calls

Affiliations

Xpert Ultra in diagnosing extrapulmonary TB: accuracy and trace calls

M M Ninan et al. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. .

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Xpert Ultra (Ultra) was developed to improve the detection of TB; however, data on Ultra´s diagnostic accuracy in extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) are limited.METHODS: In this prospective diagnostic accuracy study, 242 EPTB samples were subjected to Ultra and Xpert MTB/Rif (Xpert) testing, and these were compared with both culture and a composite gold standard.RESULTS: Compared to culture, Ultra sensitivity and specificity using bone, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), lymph node and tissue samples, and overall were respectively 100% and 77.3%, 75% and 100%, 87.5% and 87.5%, 100% and 87%, and 89.7% and 87.4%; in comparison to the composite gold standard, Ultra´s sensitivity and specificity were respectively 66.7% and 100%, 17.6% and 100%, 46.9% and 95.7%, 38.5% and 94.1%, and 46.2% and 96.9%. Using latent class analysis, sensitivity and specificity were respectively 94.5% and 96.3% for Ultra, 65.5% and 99.8% for Xpert, and 58.6% and 99.2% for culture. There were 22/242 (9%) trace calls on Ultra.CONCLUSION: We found improved sensitivity for Ultra compared to Xpert, although Ultra specificity was lower, with a large number of trace results (9%).

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources