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
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 May 7;20(5):e0321507.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321507. eCollection 2025.

Exploring the accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in detecting lymph node tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Zi-Ke Chen  1   2 , Zhao Wu  1   2 , Ting Ye  1   2 , Chao-Yang Lin  1   2 , Xu-Guang Guo  1   2   3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Exploring the accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in detecting lymph node tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Zi-Ke Chen et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The Xpert MTB/RIF assay has exhibited high diagnostic efficiency in detecting lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB). However, different gold standards and types of LNTB specimens may impact Xpert's diagnostic accuracy. This meta-analysis compared the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF on fine needle aspiration (FNA) and tissue samples against that of culture and composite reference standards (CRS) for LNTB diagnosis. In addition, we further reported the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in identifying LNTB in different age groups and rifampicin resistance in LNTB patients.

Methods: A systematic search of Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus up to October 26, 2023, was conducted. Studies comparing Xpert MTB/RIF with culture and CRS were selected. Meta-analyses and meta-regression were performed using Stata and Meta Disc software.

Results: In 9 studies, Xpert MTB/RIF was compared with CRS, while in 24 studies, it was compared with culture. The sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert MTB/RIF test were 85% and 97%, respectively, against CRS and 85% and 78%, respectively, against culture. FNA sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 88% respectively against CRS and 87% and 77% respectively against culture. For tissue samples, the sensitivity and specificity were 74% and 100%, respectively, against CRS and 74% and 77%, respectively, against culture. For the adult cohort (>14 years), the sensitivity and specificity of FNA samples were 80% and 75% against culture and 85% and 88% respectively against CRS. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert for detecting rifampicin resistance were 90% and 99% respectively.

Conclusion: Xpert MTB/RIF demonstrated excellent accuracy for diagnosing LNTB and rifampicin resistance, with FNA samples outperforming tissue samples acquired through biopsy and CRS as superior to culture standards.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

NO authors have competing interests.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Literature retrieval flow chart.
A total of 97, 67, 185, 16 and 247 articles were found from PUBMED, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE, COCHRANE LIBRARY and SCOPUS respectively.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Methodological quality graphs (risk of bias and applicability concerns) as percentages across the included studies.
(a) Composite reference standard. (b) Culture reference standard.
Fig 3
Fig 3. (a) Forest plot of the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert for tuberculosis detection compared with a composite reference standard. (b) Forest plot of the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert for tuberculosis detection compared with the culture reference standard. The squares represent the sensitivity and specificity of a study, and the black line represents their confidence intervals. The diamonds represent the pooled sensitivity and specificity and their confidence intervals.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Forest plot of the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert for detecting tuberculosis versus a composite reference standard.
(a) FNA samples. (b) Tissue samples. The squares represent the sensitivity and specificity of a study, and the black line represents their confidence intervals. The diamonds represent the pooled sensitivity and specificity and their confidence intervals.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Forest plot of the sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert for tuberculosis detection versus culture.
(a) FNA samples. (b) Tissue samples. The squares represent the sensitivity and specificity of a study, and the black line represents their confidence intervals. The diamonds represent the pooled sensitivity and specificity and their confidence intervals.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Handa U, Mundi I, Mohan S. Nodal tuberculosis revisited: a review. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2012;6(1):6–12. doi: 10.3855/jidc.2090 - DOI - PubMed
    1. W.H. Organization(WHO). Global Tuberculosis Report. 2019.
    1. Lewinsohn DM, Leonard MK, LoBue PA, Cohn DL, Daley CL, Desmond E, et al.. Official American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clinical Practice Guidelines: diagnosis of tuberculosis in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(2):111–5. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw778 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Asano S. Granulomatous lymphadenitis. J Clin Exp Hematop. 2012;52(1):1–16. doi: 10.3960/jslrt.52.1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boehme CC, Nicol MP, Nabeta P, Michael JS, Gotuzzo E, Tahirli R, et al.. Feasibility, diagnostic accuracy, and effectiveness of decentralised use of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for diagnosis of tuberculosis and multidrug resistance: a multicentre implementation study. Lancet. 2011;377(9776):1495–505. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60438-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources