Skip to main content
. 2020 Aug 27;2020(8):CD013359. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013359.pub2

Tortoli 2012.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Cross‐sectional, manner of selection not reported, retrospective
Patient characteristics and setting Presenting signs and symptoms: Not reported
Age, months: median 84
Sex, female: not reported
HIV infection: not reported
Sample size included for analysis: 174 pulmonary tuberculosis; 89 LNTB; 43 TBM
Clinical setting: laboratory
Laboratory level where index test was performed: central
Country: Italy
World Bank income classification: high income
High TB burden country: no
High TB/HIV burden country: no
High MDR‐TB burden country: no
Prevalence of tuberculosis cases in the study: 22% PTB; 17% LNTB; 9% TBM
Index tests Xpert MTB/RIF
Target condition and reference standard(s) PTB, LNTB, TBM
Solid and liquid culture (LJ and MGIT)
Flow and timing  
Comparative  
Notes  
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Unclear    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Unclear    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   Unclear risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     Unclear
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    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Xpert Ultra)
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Unclear    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes    
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?   Unclear risk  
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   Unclear risk