| Literature DB >> 23349670 |
Chaitali Nikam1, Manjula Jagannath, Manoj Mulakkapurath Narayanan, Vinaya Ramanabhiraman, Mubin Kazi, Anjali Shetty, Camilla Rodrigues.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Control of the global Tuberculosis (TB) burden is hindered by the lack of a simple and effective diagnostic test that can be utilized in resource-limited settings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23349670 PMCID: PMC3549918 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051121
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Study design for evaluation of Truenat MTB performance.
Primers used for nested PCR.
| Primer | Region | Product size | Nucleotides |
| Forward: | INS | 245 bp | 631–650 |
| Reverse: | 856–875 | ||
| Forward: | IS | 123 bp | 762–781 |
| Reverse: | 865–884 | ||
| Forward: | β-globin | 291 bp | - |
| Reverse: |
Figure 2Sample loading on Trueprep-MAG device.
Figure 3Addition of 5 µl of DNA to Truenat MTB chip.
Figure 4Enlistment and outcome of study.
Performance of PCR tests in various patient groups.
| Smear | Culture | S+C+(n = 112) | S−C−(n = 77) | |||
| Truenat MTB | + | − | + | − | ||
| + | 119 | 55 | 132 | 42 | 111 | 34 |
| − | 1 | 51 | 9 | 43 | 1 | 43 |
| In-house nested PCR | ||||||
| + | 117 | 59 | 135 | 41 | 111 | 35 |
| − | 3 | 47 | 6 | 44 | 1 | 42 |
Comparison of Truenat MTB results with in-house nested PCR results.
| Nested PCR | ||
| Truenat MTB | + | − |
| + | 160 | 14 |
| − | 16 | 36 |
Comparison of all methods against CRS as reference standard.
| (N = 226) | CRS vs Others | |||||||
| Smear(%) | Culture(%) | Nested(%) | Truenat(%) | |||||
| Pos | Neg | Pos | Neg | Pos | Neg | Pos | Neg | |
| Test Pos | 120 | 71 | 141 | 50 | 173 | 18 | 174 | 17 |
| Test Neg | 0 | 35 | 0 | 35 | 3 | 32 | 0 | 35 |
| Sensitivity | 63 | 74 | 91 | 91 | ||||
| Specificity | 100 | 100 | 91 | 100 | ||||
| PPV | 100 | 100 | 98 | 100 | ||||
| NPV | 33 | 41 | 64 | 67 | ||||
Figure 5Forest plot for sensitivity values of microbiological and molecular methods.
Forest Plot for sensitivity of smear, Culture, Nested and Truenat molecular methods with pooled sensitivity. Performance of molecular methods studies reporting sensitivity. Point estimates of sensitivity estimates from each study are shown as solid circles. Solid lines represent the 95%CI. CI = confidence interval.
Figure 6ROC curves for various techniques evaluated in this study.
Performance of molecular tests reporting sensitivity and specificity. The curve is the regression line that summarises the overall diagnostic accuracy. Q* is an index defined by the point on the SROC curve where the sensitivity and specificity are equal, which is the point closest to the top-left corner of the ROC space. SROC: summary receiver operating curve; AUC: area under the curve; SE (AUC): standard error of AUC; SE (Q*): standard error of Q* index.