Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Cross‐sectional design, consecutive enrolment, prospective data collection | ||
Patient characteristics and setting | Presenting signs and symptoms: presumptive or recently diagnosed TB Age: 18 years and older Sex, female: not reported HIV infection: estimated < 5 % History of TB: not reported Sample size: 228 Clinical setting: outpatient and inpatient Laboratory level: central Country: Russia World Bank Income Classification: middle income High TB burden country: yes High MDR‐TB burden country: no High TB/HIV burden country: yes TB incidence rate: 97 per 100,000 MDR‐TB prevalence: Percent MDR‐TB among new TB cases = 20% (Source: Surveillance in 20 Oblasts 2010) and among retreatment cases = 46% (Source: Surveillance in 20 Oblasts 2008) Prevalence of TB cases in the study: 46.9% |
||
Index tests | Index: Xpert MTB/RIF | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Target condition: pulmonary TB Reference standard for pulmonary TB: MGIT 960 Target condition: rifampicin resistance Reference standard for rifampicin resistance: MGIT 960 |
||
Flow and timing | |||
Comparative | |||
Notes | Fresh, unconcentrated sputum was initially homogenized using a vortex with glass beads | ||
Methodological quality | |||
Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Yes | ||
Was a case‐control design avoided? | Yes | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Yes | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Xpert MTB/RIF | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Yes | ||
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | Yes | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Yes | ||
Were the reference standard results for TB detection interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? | Yes | ||
Were the reference standard results for rifampicin resistance detection interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? | Yes | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Yes | ||
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | Yes | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
Low |