Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 30;17(12):e0279256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279256

Usefulness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-polymerase chain reaction with bronchial washing samples in predicting discontinuation of airborne infection isolation in patients hospitalized with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis

Tae-Ok Kim 1,2, Young-Ok Na 1, Hwa Kyung Park 1, Jae-Kyeong Lee 1, Hyung-Joo Oh 1, Bo Gun Kho 1, Ha-Young Park 1, Yong-Soo Kwon 1,2, Yu-Il Kim 1,2, Sung-Chul Lim 1,2, Hong-Joon Shin 1,2,*
Editor: Mao-Shui Wang3
PMCID: PMC9803188  PMID: 36584035

Abstract

Objective

In-hospital tuberculosis (TB) transmission remains a concern. Airborne infection isolation (AII) can be discontinued in hospitalized patients with suspected active pulmonary TB when the results of three consecutive sputum acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smears are negative. However, fiberoptic bronchoscopy can be performed in patients who may have difficulty in producing sputum samples. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-polymerase chain reaction (MTB-PCR) with bronchial washing specimens in predicting AII discontinuation in hospitalized patients with suspected active pulmonary TB.

Methods

We reviewed the medical charts of patients admitted to a tertiary hospital who were isolated and underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy for suspicious pulmonary TB from January 2016 to December 2019. Patients with positive MTB-PCR results in the initial sputum examination were excluded. Criteria for discontinuing AII were defined as negative results for three consecutive AFB smears from respiratory specimens, or cases diagnosed other than TB. The study patients were divided into two groups: TB group and non-TB group.

Results

In total, 166 patients were enrolled in the study. Of them, 35 patients were diagnosed with TB. There was no significant difference between the number of males in the TB (81; 61.8%) and non-TB (21; 60.0%) group. Though 139 patients had negative results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens, eight showed positive AFB culture. Of the 139 patients with negative MTB-PCR results, 138 had negative results for three consecutive AFB smears or were established to not have pulmonary TB. Therefore, the predictive accuracy of MTB-PCR with bronchial washing samples for discontinuing AII was 99.2%.

Conclusion

Although a negative result from MTB-PCR with bronchial washing samples cannot exclude pulmonary TB, it can predict AII discontinuation in hospitalized patients with suspected active pulmonary TB.

Introduction

According to the 2020 World Health Organization tuberculosis (TB) report, 10.0 million patients were diagnosed with TB and 1.4 million people died from TB in 2019 [1]. As TB is transmitted through the air, airborne infection isolation (AII) is required for inpatients with suspected pulmonary TB. To diagnose pulmonary TB, acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smear examination, AFB culture, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis-polymerase chain reaction (MTB-PCR) using respiratory samples—such as expectorated or induced sputum, endotracheal aspirates, and fiberoptic bronchoscopy specimens—are required [2]. As it takes several weeks to confirm the results of AFB culture, the initial AFB smear and MTB-PCR results are important in diagnosing TB or determining the need for AII discontinuation. However, the criteria for discontinuing AII in patients who were not diagnosed with TB based on the initial AFB smear and MTB-PCR results have not been clearly established.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommend that AII should be discontinued if the results of three consecutive AFB smear tests performed within an interval of 8 to 24 hours are negative [3]. However, delayed AII discontinuation was reported in 81% of patients with suspected TB [4]. Though a single sputum Xpert test significantly reduced the AII duration in a recent study, good-quality sputum specimens were needed for this test [5]. There was no study establishing the criteria for AII discontinuation in patients who have difficulty in producing good-quality sputum samples or who cannot undergo a sputum examination.

This study aimed to determine whether the results of an MTB-PCR from fiberoptic bronchoscopy specimens can predict AII discontinuation in hospitalized patients who are suspected of pulmonary TB.

Patients and methods

Study population

This study retrospectively investigated hospitalized patients in AII who underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy for suspected pulmonary TB in a single tertiary hospital of South Korea from January 2017 to December 2019. All enrolled patients underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy because they were unable to expectorate sputum or because TB could not be ruled out based on the results of initial sputum AFB smear and MTB-PCR. We screened patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy under AII during the study period. Patients who were already undergoing treatment for TB and those aged <18 years were excluded. Patients who were diagnosed by only clinical or histological findings were excluded. Patients who underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy for purposes other than TB diagnosis were also excluded. TB was diagnosed using the following methods: identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with culture or MTB-PCR. Patients were divided into two groups: the TB and non-TB groups. TB burden in South Korea is intermediate [6].

Data collection

We reviewed the medical charts of the patients during the study period. The patients’ age, sex, underlying diseases (hypertension, diabetes, previous TB history, and previous cerebral infarction history), and initial symptoms (cough, sputum, fever, dyspnea, and hemoptysis) were investigated. The results of AFB smear tests, MTB-PCRs, and TB culture using the sputum and fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples were collected. Chest computed tomography (CT) scans were also evaluated.

Sputum examination

The sputum samples for AFB smear, AFB culture, and MTB-PCRs were placed in separate bottles and transferred to the laboratory. MTB-PCRs were performed using real-time MTB-PCR or Xpert MTB/RIF assay.

Fiberoptic bronchoscopy procedures

Fiberoptic bronchoscopy was performed according to the guidelines [7]. Washing or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was performed for the lesion with the highest TB risk according to the judgment of the test operator. In the case of multiple lesions, fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples were obtained from two sites at the discretion of the operator. All fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples were used for the AFB smear, AFB culture, and MTB-PCR. MTB-PCRs were performed using real-time MTB-PCR or Xpert MTB/RIF assay. Transbronchial lung biopsy was performed at the discretion of the operator.

Radiologic findings

All enrolled participants underwent chest CT. Radiologic findings were assessed based on the radiologists’ formal report or pulmonologists’ judgment. Radiologic findings included nodules, cavities, consolidations, ground-glass opacities, bronchiectasis, and old TB lesions [8]. The involvement of the upper lobe was also investigated.

Criteria for the discontinuation of AII

The criteria for the discontinuation of AII were negative results on a MTB-PCR using sputum or bronchial washing samples and negative results on three consecutive AFB smears using sputum or bronchial washing specimens or if TB was ruled out.

Prediction of the discontinuation of AII

The predictive accuracy for discontinuation of AII of MTB-PCRs using bronchial washing samples was calculated as follows:

A: Numbers of patients with three consecutive negative AFB smear test results or diagnosed other than TB

B: Number of patients with negative MTB-PCR results using bronchial washing samples

PredictiveaccuracyforpossiblediscontinuationofAII=AB×100(%)

Ethics statement

The Institutional Review Board at Chonnam National University Hospital (Gwangju, Republic of Korea) approved the study protocol and permitted the review and publication of our findings, as well as that of information derived from patient records (CNUH-01021-270). The requirement for informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study, and approved by ethic committee. Patient information was fully rendered innominate before analysis.

Statistical analysis

All data were expressed as the median (interquartile range [IQR]) or number (percentage). Demographic and clinical variables were compared between the TB group and non-TB group using the chi-square test (for categorical variables) or Mann–Whitney U test (for continuous variables). Diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value was determined using TB culture as the gold standard.

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA); a P value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

In total, 216 patients underwent isolation and fiberoptic bronchoscopy during the study period (Fig 1). Of them, 50 were excluded from the study owing to the following reasons: 16 were already undergoing TB treatment, 10 underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of diseases other than TB, 8 showed positive results for a previous sputum MTB-PCR, 7 were isolated owing to influenza, 5 were aged <18 years, and 4 were diagnosed with TB by clinical or histologic findings. Finally, a total of 166 patients were enrolled. Of them, 35 patients were diagnosed with TB.

Fig 1. Flowchart of study inclusion.

Fig 1

AII, airborne infection isolation; MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

Baseline characteristics in the pulmonary TB and non-TB groups

In the TB group, 35 were diagnosed with TB via MTB-PCR using bronchial washing specimens and TB culture (Table 1). Those in the non-TB group had the following diagnosis: pneumonia (46.6%), nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (18.3%), and lung cancer (10.7%). There was no significant difference between the number of males in the TB (81; 61.8%) and non-TB (21; 60.0%) group. No significant difference was observed in the median age between the two groups (63.2 years in the non-TB group vs. 74.0 in the TB group; P = 0.132). A history of TB infection was more common in the non-TB group than in the TB group (20.6% vs. 57%; P = 0.045). Patients in the non-TB group had significantly more hemoptysis than those in the TB group. Of 166 patients, 9 (non-TB group: 6; TB group: 3) were not tested for sputum AFB smears, 31 (non-TB group: 20; TB group: 11) did not undergo the sputum MTB-PCR tests, and 8 (non-TB group: 4; TB group: 4) did not perform the sputum TB cultures. The number of patients with positive sputum AFB smear results was significantly higher in the TB group than in the non-TB group (17.1% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.001). Positive culture results were observed for 21 patients in sputum and for 26 patients in washing samples. Of these 17 patients had positive results both in sputum and washing samples. Thus, total 30 patients had positive cultures either in sputum or washing samples. Of 166 patients who were not diagnosed based on the results of the initial sputum examination, 27 were diagnosed via MTB-PCR using bronchial washing specimens. Nodules (85.7% vs. 51.1%; P < 0.000) were more frequent in the TB group than in the non-TB group.

Table 1. Patients’ baseline characteristics.

Variables Non-TB
(n = 131)
Pulmonary TB
(n = 35)
P value
Age, years 63.2 (52.0–76.0) 74.0 (62.0–77.0) 0.132
Sex, male 81 (61.8%) 21 (60.0%) 0.847
Hypertension 45 (34.4%) 14 (40.0%) 0.555
Diabetes mellitus 26 (19.8%) 11 (31.4%) 0.171
Tuberculosis history 27 (20.6%) 2 (5.7%) 0.045
COPD 10 (7.6%) 1 (2.9%) 0.461
Old cerebrovascular disease 9 (6.9%) 4 (11.4%) 0.476
Initial symptoms
    Cough 64 (48.9%) 13 (37.1%) 0.255
    Sputum 55 (42.0%) 9 (25.7%) 0.117
    Fever 35 (26.7%) 9 (26.5%) 1.000
    Dyspnea 41 (31.3%) 17 (48.6%) 0.073
    Hemoptysis 40 (30.5%) 3 (8.6%) 0.008
Diagnostic evaluation
    Sputum AFB smear, positive 3 (2.4%) 6 (17.1%) 0.001
    Sputum culture, positive 0 21 (60.0%)
    AFB smear using washing samples, positive 4 (3.1%) 8 (22.9%) <0.000
    MTB-PCR using washing samples, positive 0 27 (77.1%)
    Culture using washing samples, positive 0 26 (74.3%)
Radiologic findings
    Nodules 67 (51.1%) 30 (85.7%) <0.000
    Consolidations 95 (72.5%) 21 (60.0%) 0.213
    Cavitary diseases 33 (25.2%) 10 (28.6%) 0.670
    Ground-glass opacities 37 (28.2%) 4 (11.4%) 0.047
    Bronchiectasis 22 (16.8%) 3 (8.6%) 0.293
    Old tuberculosis 26 (19.8%) 11 (31.4%) 0.171
    Upper lobe involvement 112 (85.5%) 34 (97.1%) 0.078
Diseases other than TB
    Pneumonia 61 (46.6%)
    NTM-lung disease 24 (18.3%)
    Lung cancer 14 (10.7%)

Data are presented as the median (interquartile range) or number (%).

MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; AFB, acid-fast bacilli; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; NTM, non-tuberculous mycobacterium.

Diagnostic yield of MTB-PCR using washing samples

Of 27 patients who had positive results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens, 22 showed positive MTB culture. Of 139 patients with negative results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens, 8 showed positive MTB culture. Considering that MTB culture is the gold standard, MTB-PCR using washing specimens showed 73.3% sensitivity, 96.43% specificity, 81.4% positive predictive value, and 94.2% negative predictive value (Table 2).

Table 2. Diagnostic yield of MTB-PCR using bronchoscopy samples considering AFB culture as the gold standard.

Culture
(+)
Culture
(-)
Total Sensitivity
%
Specificity
%
PPV
%
NPV
%
MTB-PCR
(+)
22 5 27 73.3
(54.1–87.7)
96.3
(91.6–98.8)
81.4
(64.4–91.4)
94.2
(90.0–95.7)
MTB-PCR
(-)
8 131 139
Total 30 136 166

Data are presented as numbers. (+) positive; (−) negative.

MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; AFB, acid-fast bacilli; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.

There were 131 patients with negative results for both sputum AFB smears and sputum TB-PCR tests. Sixteen were positive in the MTB-PCR test using washing specimens and eighteen were positive for MTB culture. Of 16 patients who had positive results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens, 11 showed positive MTB culture. Of 115 patients with negative results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens, 7 showed positive MTB culture. MTB-PCR using washing specimens showed 61.1% sensitivity, 95.5% specificity, 68.7% positive predictive value, and 93.9% negative predictive value in patients with negative sputum AFB smear and MTB-PCR results (S1 Table).

Prediction of the discontinuation of AII

Of 166 patients, 139 showed negative results for MTB-PCR using washing specimens (Table 3). Of the 139 patients with negative results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens, 8 were finally diagnosed with TB. Of them, 7 patients had negative results on three consecutive AFB smear tests. Of the 139 patients with negative MTB-PCR results, 138 had negative results for three consecutive AFB smears (n = 7) or were established not to have pulmonary TB (n = 131). Therefore, the predictive accuracy of MTB-PCR using washing specimens for the discontinuation of AII was 99.2% (Table 3).

Table 3. Prediction of the discontinuation of airborne infection isolation using bronchoscopy samples.

Variables n Accuracy
TB-PCR using washing samples, positive 27
TB-PCR using washing samples, negative 139
    • TB culture, positive 8
    : Three consecutive smear examinations, negative 7
    : One smear examination, negative 1
    • Diseases other than TB 131
Predictability of AII discontinuation 99.2%

TB, tuberculosis; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; AII, airborne infection isolation.

Subgroup analysis of TB group

Of the patients who showed negative results for MTB-PCR using sputum and washing samples, eight were diagnosed with TB. Age and sex were similar between the TB subgroups with negative (n = 8) and positive results (n = 27) on MTB-PCR using washing samples (Table 4). The TB subgroup with positive MTB-PCR results had a higher frequency of positive AFB smear results and positive TB culture using washing samples. However, no significant difference was observed in the findings between the two subgroups on imaging.

Table 4. Subgroup analysis of patients with tuberculosis.

Variables Negative results on PCR using washing samples (n = 8) Positive results on PCR using washing samples (n = 27) P value
Age, years 73.5 (65.7–77.0) 74.0 (61.0–76.0) 0.714
Sex, male 5 (62.5%) 16 (59.3%) 1.000
Hypertension 3 (37.5%) 11 (40.7%) 1.000
Diabetes mellitus 3 (37.5%) 8 (29.6%) 0.685
TB history 0 (0%) 2 (7.4%) 1.000
COPD 0 (0%) 1 (3.7%) 1.000
Old cerebrovascular disease 1 (12.5%) 3 (11.1%) 1.000
Initial symptoms
Cough 4 (50.0%) 9 (33.3%) 0.433
Sputum 3 (37.5%) 6 (22.2%) 0.396
Fever 2 (28.6%) 7 (25.9%) 1.000
Dyspnea 5 (62.5%) 12 (44.4%) 0.443
Hemoptysis 1 (12.5%) 2 (7.4%) 0.553
Diagnostic evaluation
Sputum AFB smear, positive 0 (0%) 6 (25.0%) 0.339
Sputum culture, positive 7 (87.5%) 14 (58.3%) 0.118
AFB smear using washing samples, positive 0 (0%) 8 (29.6%) 0.154
Culture using washing samples, positive 5 (62.5%) 21 (77.8%) 0.385
Radiologic findings
Nodules 6 (75.0%) 24 (88.9%) 0.568
Consolidations 4 (50.0%) 17 (63.0%) 0.685
Cavities 2 (25.0%) 8 (29.6%) 1.000
Ground-glass opacities 0 (0%) 4 (14.8%) 0.553
Bronchiectasis 0 (0%) 3 (11.1%) 1.000
Old tuberculosis 1 (12.5%) 10 (37.0%) 0.387
Upper lobe involvement 8 (100.0%) 26 (96.3%) 1.000

Data are presented as the median (interquartile range) or number (%).

PCR, polymerase chain reaction; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; AFB, acid-fast bacilli; MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Five of the 27 patients with positive MTB-PCR results in washing samples had negative TB cultures (S2 Table). There were more ground-glass opacities on chest CT in culture-negative patients than in culture-positive patients (1 [4.5%] vs. 3 [60.0%]; P = 0.013).

Discussion

This study investigated whether the results of MTB-PCRs using fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples could predict AII discontinuation in hospitalized patients who are suspected of pulmonary TB. Twenty-seven patients were diagnosed with TB by MTB-PCRs using fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples. Negative results for MTB-PCR using washing specimens were highly predictive of AII discontinuation. In patients diagnosed with TB, no significant clinical difference was observed between the groups with positive and negative results on MTB-PCRs using fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples.

To diagnose pulmonary TB, sputum specimens are required for sputum examinations, including AFB smear, AFB culture, and MTB-PCRs. Sputum induction or fiberoptic bronchoscopy is performed in patients experiencing difficulty with sputum production [911]. The diagnostic yield of sputum induction and fiberoptic bronchoscopy are similar [1214]. In this study, none of the patients underwent sputum induction, and all patients underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Twenty-seven patients, who were not diagnosed via sputum examination, were diagnosed with TB through MTB-PCRs using fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples. In this study, 139 patients had negative results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens; however, 8 showed positive AFB culture. Although the negative predictive value of MTB-PCR for diagnosis of TB was high at 94.2% in this study, negative results on MTB-PCR using fiberoptic bronchoscopy washing samples could not exclude pulmonary TB.

The risk factors for TB transmission include presence of cavitary disease, positive sputum MTB-PCR results, and positive AFB sputum smear results [15,16]. Pulmonary TB patients with positive AFB smear results have a higher risk of transmitting TB than those with negative AFB smear results [17,18]. The criteria for the discontinuation of AII with suspected pulmonary TB remain unclear. The CDC recommends the discontinuation of AII if the results of three serial sputum smear tests are negative [3]. Because the incremental diagnostic yield of a third sputum examination is low, a few hospitals consider two negative sputum smear test results as the criteria for the discontinuation of AII [19,20]. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration stated that one or two negative sputum Xpert test results can be used as the criteria for discontinuing AII as an alternative to serial sputum AFB smears [21]. In a low-burden setting, negative sputum results of single or serial Xpert tests were useful for AII discontinuation and shortening the AII duration compared with serial sputum AFB smear results [5,11,20,22,23]. However, in patients who cannot produce enough sputum, one or two sputum AFB smear tests or MTB-PCRs may not be sufficient to determine the need for discontinuing AII. In this study, the predictability of MTB-PCRs using fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples for the discontinuation of AII was high in patients who are unable to expectorate sputum or those where TB could not be ruled out based on the results of initial sputum AFB smear and MTB-PCR.

The effectiveness of AII discontinuation remains controversial. TB transmission was observed in 13–20% of patients with smear-negative culture-positive TB [15,24,25]. Therefore, even if AII is discontinued in patients with negative results on three consecutive sputum AFB smear tests according to the CDC guidelines, TB cannot be excluded, and the risk of TB transmission remains. However, additional studies are needed to determine whether culture-positive patients have a risk of TB transmission among patients with negative results on AFB smears and MTB-PCRs using fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples.

This study had several limitations. First, this was a retrospective study conducted in a single center. Therefore, there is a limit to the generalization of our findings. Second, four patients with pulmonary tuberculosis had positive sputum AFB smears and negative sputum MTB-PCR results. The sensitivity of sputum MTB-PCR is high if sputum AFB smears are positive in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Thus, these results might be due to errors in the sputum MTB-PCR test or insufficient sputum samples. Third, the effect of MTB-PCRs using fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples on the reduction of AII duration could not be evaluated in this study. Therefore, further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effect of MTB-PCRs using fiberoptic bronchoscopy samples on reducing the duration of isolation.

Conclusion

Although negative results on MTB-PCR using fiberoptic bronchoscopy washing samples cannot exclude pulmonary TB, the results can predict the discontinuation of AII in patients with suspected active pulmonary TB.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Diagnostic yield of MTB-PCR using bronchoscopy samples considering AFB culture as the gold standard in patients with negative sputum AFB smear and MTB-PCR results.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Subgroup analysis of patients with positive MTB-PCR results.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Data set.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors report the following sources of funding: Grant BCRI20021 from Chonnam National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute awarded to TOK and Grant 2022R1F1A1069623 from National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean Government awarded to TOK. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO. Global Tuberculosis Report 2020. Geneva2020 [Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/336069/9789240013131-eng.pdf.
  • 2.WHO. Guidelines for treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis and patient care 2017. Geneva2017 [Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/255052/9789241550000-eng.pdf?sequence=1.
  • 3.CDC. Infection Control in Health-Care Settings 2012 [Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/prevention/ichcs.pdf.
  • 4.Thomas BS, Bello EF, Seto TB. Prevalence and predictors of compliance with discontinuation of airborne isolation in patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(9):967–72. doi: 10.1086/671732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Poonawala H, Leekha S, Medina-Moreno S, Filippell M, Johnson JK, Redfield RR, et al. Use of a Single Xpert MTB/RIF Assay to Determine the Duration of Airborne Isolation in Hospitalized Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(5):590–5. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kim H, Shin J, Kim H, Lee J, Kim J, Kong I. Notified tuberculosis in the Republic of Korea, 2018. Public Health Weekly Rep. 2019;12:366–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Du Rand IA, Blaikley J, Booton R, Chaudhuri N, Gupta V, Khalid S, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline for diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy in adults: accredited by NICE. Thorax. 2013;68 Suppl 1:i1–i44. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-203618 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Austin JH, Muller NL, Friedman PJ, Hansell DM, Naidich DP, Remy-Jardin M, et al. Glossary of terms for CT of the lungs: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee of the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 1996;200(2):327–31. doi: 10.1148/radiology.200.2.8685321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Updated guidelines for the use of nucleic acid amplification tests in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(1):7–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dheda K, Barry CE 3rd, Maartens G. Tuberculosis. Lancet. 2016;387(10024):1211–26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00151-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.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):e1–e33. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Anderson C, Inhaber N, Menzies D. Comparison of sputum induction with fiber-optic bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(5 Pt 1):1570–4. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.152.5.7582296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Conde MB, Soares SL, Mello FC, Rezende VM, Almeida LL, Reingold AL, et al. Comparison of sputum induction with fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of tuberculosis: experience at an acquired immune deficiency syndrome reference center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162(6):2238–40. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.6.2003125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.McWilliams T, Wells AU, Harrison AC, Lindstrom S, Cameron RJ, Foskin E. Induced sputum and bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Thorax. 2002;57(12):1010–4. doi: 10.1136/thorax.57.12.1010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tostmann A, Kik SV, Kalisvaart NA, Sebek MM, Verver S, Boeree MJ, et al. Tuberculosis transmission by patients with smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis in a large cohort in the Netherlands. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(9):1135–42. doi: 10.1086/591974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.O’Shea MK, Koh GC, Munang M, Smith G, Banerjee A, Dedicoat M. Time-to-detection in culture predicts risk of Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission: a cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):177–85. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Shaw JB, Wynn-Williams N. Infectivity of pulmonary tuberculosis in relation to sputum status. Am Rev Tuberc. 1954;69(5):724–32. doi: 10.1164/art.1954.69.5.724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Grzybowski S, Barnett GD, Styblo K. Contacts of cases of active pulmonary tuberculosis. Bull Int Union Tuberc. 1975;50(1):90–106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mase SR, Ramsay A, Ng V, Henry M, Hopewell PC, Cunningham J, et al. Yield of serial sputum specimen examinations in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2007;11(5):485–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chaisson LH, Roemer M, Cantu D, Haller B, Millman AJ, Cattamanchi A, et al. Impact of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay on triage of respiratory isolation rooms for inpatients with presumed tuberculosis: a hypothetical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(10):1353–60. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Administration UfaD. New data show test can help physicians remove patients with suspected TB from isolation earlier. 2015.
  • 22.Lippincott CK, Miller MB, Popowitch EB, Hanrahan CF, Van Rie A. Xpert MTB/RIF assay shortens airborne isolation for hospitalized patients with presumptive tuberculosis in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):186–92. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu212 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cowan JF, Chandler AS, Kracen E, Park DR, Wallis CK, Liu E, et al. Clinical Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF Testing in Hospitalized Patients With Presumptive Pulmonary Tuberculosis in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(4):482–9. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Behr MA, Warren SA, Salamon H, Hopewell PC, Ponce de Leon A, Daley CL, et al. Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from patients smear-negative for acid-fast bacilli. Lancet. 1999;353(9151):444–9. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)03406-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hernandez-Garduno E, Cook V, Kunimoto D, Elwood RK, Black WA, FitzGerald JM. Transmission of tuberculosis from smear negative patients: a molecular epidemiology study. Thorax. 2004;59(4):286–90. doi: 10.1136/thx.2003.011759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dario Ummarino, PhD

5 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-35876Usefulness of Mycobacteriumtuberculosis-polymerase chain reaction with bronchial washing samples in predicting discontinuation of airborne infection isolation in patients hospitalized with suspected pulmonary tuberculosisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. As you can see in the report attached below, the reviewer has raised some minor points about the methodology and result presentation. Please revise the manuscript to carefully address all the concerns raised.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dario Ummarino, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean Government (grant 2019R1F1A1060899).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“HJS

grant 2019R1F1A1060899

National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean Government

he funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3.Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Lines 73 and 74. In the exclusion criteria, I understand that patients who were undergoing treatment for tuberculosis were excluded from the study. But why patients who were only diagnosed clinically or histologically were excluded?

Line 160. Where it says Of 166 patients, 11 (non-TB group: 6; TB group: 3) it should say Of 166 patients, 9 (non-TB group: 6; TB group: 3)

Why are in table 1 26 positive cultures for M.tuberculosis and in table 2 are 30 positive cultures?

Line 176. Where it says Of 136 patients with negative results it should say Of 139 patients with negative results

In lines 181 and 182 the name of table 2 instead of being

Table 2. Diagnostic yield of MTB-PCR using bronchoscopy samples considering AFB culture as the gold standard should be Table 2. Diagnostic yield of MTB-PCR using bronchoscopy samples considering AFB culture as the gold standard

In line 191 where it says A total of 139 patients were negative for TB it should say A total of 131 patients were negative for TB

In line 192 If we take into account that there were 131 negative cultures for M.tuberculosis and 139 negative MTB-PCR, the predictive accuracy would be 94.2%.

The authors explain very well the characteristics of the 8 patients who showed negative results for MTB-PCR using sputum and washing samples and positive culture for M.tuberculosis. But it is also important to explain the characteristics of the 5 patients who showed a positive MTB-PCR result and a negative culture for M.tuberculosis.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 30;17(12):e0279256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279256.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Aug 2022

Responses to reviewers

Reviewer #1

Q1. Lines 73 and 74. In the exclusion criteria, I understand that patients who were undergoing treatment for tuberculosis were excluded from the study. But why patients who were only diagnosed clinically or histologically were excluded?

A1. Thank you for your comments.

Three patients with clinically diagnosed tuberculosis were excluded from this study. Despite being clinically diagnosed with TB, there was a limitation in evaluating the adequacy of air isolation in patients who showed negative results in all tests, including bronchoscopy.

One patient with histologically diagnosed TB was also excluded from this study. TB-PCR, TB-culture, and AFB/S tests were negative in the patient. Histologically, only granulation tissue was observed, but tissue TB-PCR was negative. Because it was unclear whether the patient had tuberculosis, we excluded the patient from this study.

Q2. Line 160. Where it says Of 166 patients, 11 (non-TB group: 6; TB group: 3) it should say Of 166 patients, 9 (non-TB group: 6; TB group: 3)

A2. Thank you for your comments. We changed the manuscript as your recommendation. [See line 160 on page 9]

Q3. Why are in table 1 26 positive cultures for M. tuberculosis and in table 2 are 30 positive cultures?

A3. Thank you for your comment. As shown in Table 1, positive culture results were observed for 21 patients in sputum and for 26 patients in washing samples. Of these 17 patients had positive results both in sputum and washing samples. Thus, total 30 patients had positive cultures either in sputum or washing samples. We modified the manuscript of results section. [See line 164-167 on page 10]

Q4. Line 176. Where it says Of 136 patients with negative results it should say Of 139 patients with negative results

A4. Thank you for your valuable comment. We changed the manuscript as your comment. [See line 194 on page 12]

Q5. In lines 181 and 182 the name of table 2 instead of being

Table 2. Diagnostic yield of MTB-PCR using bronchoscopy samples considering AFB culture as the gold standard should be Table 2. Diagnostic yield of MTB-PCR using bronchoscopy samples considering AFB culture as the gold standard.

A5. The suggested sentence is the same as the existing sentence of title of table 2. [See line 184-185 on page 11]

Q6. In line 191 where it says A total of 139 patients were negative for TB it should say A total of 131 patients were negative for TB

A6. Thank you for your valuable comment. This sentence was deleted because its meaning was unclear. Instead, we provided a detailed description of predictive accuracy. [See line 194-195 on page 12]

Q7. In line 192 If we take into account that there were 131 negative cultures for M.tuberculosis and 139 negative MTB-PCR, the predictive accuracy would be 94.2%.

A7. Thank you for your valuable comment. As we mentioned in the method section, the prediction of AII discontinuation is calculated as the percentage of patients with three consecutive negative AFB smear test results (n = 7) or were established not to have pulmonary TB (n = 131) out of patients with negative MTB-PCR results using bronchial washing samples (n = 139) [(7+131)/139×100 (%)]. Therefore, the prediction of the discontinuation of AII is 99.2%. We also modified abstract in the result section. [See line 194-195 on page 12]

Q8. The authors explain very well the characteristics of the 8 patients who showed negative results for MTB-PCR using sputum and washing samples and positive culture for M.tuberculosis. But it is also important to explain the characteristics of the 5 patients who showed a positive MTB-PCR result and a negative culture for M.tuberculosis.

A8. Thank you for your valuable comments. A subgroup analysis was conducted for 27 patients with positive MTB-PCR results as your recommendation. Five of the 27 patients with positive MTB-PCR results in washing samples had negative TB cultures. There were more ground-glass opacities on chest CT in culture-negative patients than in culture-positive patients (1 [4.5%] vs. 3 [60.0%]; P = 0.013). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of other clinical variables. These results have been added to Table S1 and the results section. [See line 216-218 on page 14]

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mao-Shui Wang

25 Oct 2022

PONE-D-21-35876R1Usefulness of Mycobacteriumtuberculosis-polymerase chain reaction with bronchial washing samples in predicting discontinuation of airborne infection isolation in patients hospitalized with suspected pulmonary tuberculosisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mao-Shui Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I have read the V1 and R1 version of the article and the other reviewer’s comment to V1. This is my first revision of the article. I have some additional comments that in my opinion may improve the quality of the paper.

- I think it would be of interest to know how many patients with suspected TB were included because of AFB and MTB-PCR negative results in sputum smear, and how many because they could not expectorate. Presenting data of patients with MTB-PCR negative in sputum, but positive only after bronchoscopy would be of interest, indicating the sensitivity of MTB-PCR on bronchoscopy in patients with negative results in sputum.

- It is somehow surprising the six patients with positive AFB in smear were finally diagnosed of pulmonary TB only after bronchoscopy. Was MTB-PCR performed on the positive AFB sputum sample and were in all the six patients negative? (MTB-PCR in AFB+ sputum samples has a very high sensitivity close to 100%)

Other minor comments:

- It is difficult for me to understand inclusion criteria of the initial review of 216 patients:

Fig-1 and page 9, lines 140-145. The authors state that inclusion criteria were “patients under AII who underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy for pulmonary TB, because they were unable to expectorate or because TB could not be ruled out based on the results of initial AFB smear and MTB-PCR”. So it is difficult for me to understand why among the initial 216 patients (“hospitalized patients under AII owing to suspected pulmonary TB who underwent bronchoscopy”) are included 16 patients already under treatment for TB; 8 patients with positive MTB-PCR in sputum or 3 patients with clinically diagnosed TB (they were already with a TB dg at the time performing the bronchoscopy).

- Page 4. Line 57. Interval 8 to 24 hours (not just 8h) according to ref #3.

- Although I’m not an English native speaker; I think there are some grammatical errors: page 6; line-109: results of a MTB-PCR; line: 111: if TB was ruled out...

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 30;17(12):e0279256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279256.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Nov 2022

Reviewer #2: I have read the V1 and R1 version of the article and the other reviewer’s comment to V1. This is my first revision of the article. I have some additional comments that in my opinion may improve the quality of the paper.

Q1) I think it would be of interest to know how many patients with suspected TB were included because of AFB and MTB-PCR negative results in sputum smear, and how many because they could not expectorate. Presenting data of patients with MTB-PCR negative in sputum, but positive only after bronchoscopy would be of interest, indicating the sensitivity of MTB-PCR on bronchoscopy in patients with negative results in sputum.

A1) Thank you for your comments. There were 131 patients with negative results for both sputum AFB smears and sputum TB-PCR tests. Sixteen were positive in the MTB-PCR test using washing specimens and eighteen were positive for MTB culture. Of 16 patients who had positive results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens, 11 showed positive MTB culture. Of 115 patients with negative results on MTB-PCR using washing specimens, 7 showed positive MTB culture. MTB-PCR using washing specimens showed 61.1% sensitivity, 95.5% specificity, 68.7% positive predictive value, and 93.9% negative predictive value in patients with negative sputum AFB smear and MTB-PCR results. We presented in table S1. (See line 191-198 on page 12)

Q2) It is somehow surprising the six patients with positive AFB in smear were finally diagnosed of pulmonary TB only after bronchoscopy. Was MTB-PCR performed on the positive AFB sputum sample and were in all the six patients negative? (MTB-PCR in AFB+ sputum samples has a very high sensitivity close to 100%)

A2) Thank you for your comments. The sputum AFB smear test was positive in nine of the patients enrolled in this study. Sputum TB-PCR was performed by six of them, but all of them were negative. AFB smears and TB-PCR results were positive in four of these six patients. NTM was cultured for the other two patients. AFB smear and TB-PCR tests performed on washing samples were positive for two out of three patients who did not undergo sputum TB-PCR. All tests on the remaining patient's washing specimen were negative. Sputum MTB-PCR has a very high sensitivity if AFB smear is positive in a sputum sample of a patient with pulmonary tuberculosis, as you mentioned in your comments. There were four patients in this study who had positive sputum AFB smears, but negative sputum MTB-PCRs, and tuberculosis was diagnosed through washing samples. There may have been errors in the sputum MTB-PCR tests or insufficient samples of sputum MTB-PCR have been collected. We added this limitation in the limitation section. (See line 274-278 on page 16-17)

Other minor comments:

Q3) It is difficult for me to understand inclusion criteria of the initial review of 216 patients:

Fig-1 and page 9, lines 140-145. The authors state that inclusion criteria were “patients under AII who underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy for pulmonary TB, because they were unable to expectorate or because TB could not be ruled out based on the results of initial AFB smear and MTB-PCR”. So it is difficult for me to understand why among the initial 216 patients (“hospitalized patients under AII owing to suspected pulmonary TB who underwent bronchoscopy”) are included 16 patients already under treatment for TB; 8 patients with positive MTB-PCR in sputum or 3 patients with clinically diagnosed TB (they were already with a TB dg at the time performing the bronchoscopy).

A3) Thank you for your valuable comments. To identify patients under AII who underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy for pulmonary TB, because they were unable to expectorate or because TB could not be ruled out based on the results of initial AFB smear and MTB-PCR, the following patients were screened at first: patients under AII who underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy during the study period. 216 patients were screened, and 50 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. To clarify the meaning of figure 1, we changed it. (See line 72-73 on page 5 and figure 1)

Q4) Page 4. Line 57. Interval 8 to 24 hours (not just 8h) according to ref #3.

A4) Thank you for your valuable comment. We change the manuscript as your recommendation. (See line 57 on page 4)

Q5) Although I’m not an English native speaker; I think there are some grammatical errors: page 6; line-109: results of a MTB-PCR; line: 111: if TB was ruled out...

A5) Thank you for your comment. We changed the manuscript as your comment. (See line 110 and 112 on page 6)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Mao-Shui Wang

4 Dec 2022

Usefulness of Mycobacteriumtuberculosis-polymerase chain reaction with bronchial washing samples in predicting discontinuation of airborne infection isolation in patients hospitalized with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis

PONE-D-21-35876R2

Dear Dr. Shin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mao-Shui Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the authors have correctly addressed the comments and I have no further recommendations.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Mao-Shui Wang

19 Dec 2022

PONE-D-21-35876R2

Usefulness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-polymerase chain reaction with bronchial washing samples in predicting discontinuation of airborne infection isolation in patients hospitalized with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis

Dear Dr. Shin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mao-Shui Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Diagnostic yield of MTB-PCR using bronchoscopy samples considering AFB culture as the gold standard in patients with negative sputum AFB smear and MTB-PCR results.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Subgroup analysis of patients with positive MTB-PCR results.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Data set.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES