GeneXpert Ultra对肺结核弱阳性结果的诊断准确性。

IF 1.9
Soheila Shaghaghian, Owrang Eilami, Narsis Ghahramani, Hamidreza Hedayati, Mohammad Javad Moradian, Erfan Sadeghi, Zahra Zarei, Mehdi Nejat, Sima Javanmardi
{"title":"GeneXpert Ultra对肺结核弱阳性结果的诊断准确性。","authors":"Soheila Shaghaghian, Owrang Eilami, Narsis Ghahramani, Hamidreza Hedayati, Mohammad Javad Moradian, Erfan Sadeghi, Zahra Zarei, Mehdi Nejat, Sima Javanmardi","doi":"10.26719/2026.32.6.375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The GeneXpert Ultra assay has improved sensitivity for tuberculosis diagnosis, but it is associated with an increased rate of false positive results, particularly in weakly positive categories.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the GeneXpert Ultra assay by comparing 3 approaches to interpreting weakly positive results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected laboratory data from 620 (all) individuals referred to the tuberculosis laboratory affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences laboratory, southern Islamic Republic of Iran, between 21 March 2022 and 20 March 2023. We performed GeneXpert Ultra, acid-fast bacilli smear microscopy and culture, and used results from the culture as reference standard for calculating diagnostic accuracy indices. We analysed the weakly positive results (trace and very low) using 3 approaches in which they were classified as positive or negative, or excluded from the analysis. We used SPSS version 22.0 to describe the characteristics of the participants, MedCalc version 20.104 to analyse the data and 2-tailed binomial test to compare the diagnostic indices. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GeneXpert 1 showed a low positive predictive value (68.60%) and lower specificity (90.72%) than smear microscopy (95.46%). Compared with GeneXpert 2, GeneXpert 1 demonstrated higher sensitivity (98.99%) and negative predictive value (99.77%), while GeneXpert 2 showed higher specificity (97.32%) and positive predictive value (87.66%). GeneXpert 3 showed high sensitivity (98.92%) and negative predictive value (99.77%), as well as high specificity (97.13%) and positive predictive value (87.60%), resulting in the highest overall accuracy (97.43%) and agreement with culture (Fleiss' kappa = 0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Weakly positive GeneXpert Ultra results should not be interpreted automatically as either negative or positive. Clinic, laboratory and radiologic data should be considered together to identify patients most likely to benefit from tuberculosis treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":93985,"journal":{"name":"Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit","volume":"32 6","pages":"375-382"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of GeneXpert Ultra for tuberculosis in weakly positive results.\",\"authors\":\"Soheila Shaghaghian, Owrang Eilami, Narsis Ghahramani, Hamidreza Hedayati, Mohammad Javad Moradian, Erfan Sadeghi, Zahra Zarei, Mehdi Nejat, Sima Javanmardi\",\"doi\":\"10.26719/2026.32.6.375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The GeneXpert Ultra assay has improved sensitivity for tuberculosis diagnosis, but it is associated with an increased rate of false positive results, particularly in weakly positive categories.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the GeneXpert Ultra assay by comparing 3 approaches to interpreting weakly positive results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected laboratory data from 620 (all) individuals referred to the tuberculosis laboratory affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences laboratory, southern Islamic Republic of Iran, between 21 March 2022 and 20 March 2023. We performed GeneXpert Ultra, acid-fast bacilli smear microscopy and culture, and used results from the culture as reference standard for calculating diagnostic accuracy indices. We analysed the weakly positive results (trace and very low) using 3 approaches in which they were classified as positive or negative, or excluded from the analysis. We used SPSS version 22.0 to describe the characteristics of the participants, MedCalc version 20.104 to analyse the data and 2-tailed binomial test to compare the diagnostic indices. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GeneXpert 1 showed a low positive predictive value (68.60%) and lower specificity (90.72%) than smear microscopy (95.46%). Compared with GeneXpert 2, GeneXpert 1 demonstrated higher sensitivity (98.99%) and negative predictive value (99.77%), while GeneXpert 2 showed higher specificity (97.32%) and positive predictive value (87.66%). GeneXpert 3 showed high sensitivity (98.92%) and negative predictive value (99.77%), as well as high specificity (97.13%) and positive predictive value (87.60%), resulting in the highest overall accuracy (97.43%) and agreement with culture (Fleiss' kappa = 0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Weakly positive GeneXpert Ultra results should not be interpreted automatically as either negative or positive. Clinic, laboratory and radiologic data should be considered together to identify patients most likely to benefit from tuberculosis treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit\",\"volume\":\"32 6\",\"pages\":\"375-382\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26719/2026.32.6.375\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26719/2026.32.6.375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:GeneXpert Ultra检测提高了结核病诊断的敏感性,但它与假阳性结果率增加有关,特别是在弱阳性类别中。目的:通过比较3种解释弱阳性结果的方法,评估GeneXpert Ultra检测的诊断准确性。方法:我们收集了2022年3月21日至2023年3月20日期间在伊朗伊斯兰共和国南部设拉子医学院实验室附属肺结核实验室就诊的620(全部)个体的实验室数据。采用GeneXpert Ultra、抗酸杆菌涂片镜检和培养,并将培养结果作为计算诊断准确性指标的参考标准。我们使用3种方法分析弱阳性结果(微量和非常低),其中它们被分类为阳性或阴性,或从分析中排除。采用SPSS 22.0版本描述受试者特征,MedCalc 20.104版本进行数据分析,采用双尾二项检验比较诊断指标。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:GeneXpert 1的阳性预测值(68.60%)和特异性(90.72%)低于涂片镜检(95.46%)。与GeneXpert 2相比,GeneXpert 1具有更高的敏感性(98.99%)和阴性预测值(99.77%),而GeneXpert 2具有更高的特异性(97.32%)和阳性预测值(87.66%)。GeneXpert 3具有高灵敏度(98.92%)和阴性预测值(99.77%),高特异性(97.13%)和阳性预测值(87.60%),总体准确率最高(97.43%),与培养吻合(Fleiss’kappa = 0.91)。结论:弱阳性GeneXpert Ultra结果不应自动解释为阴性或阳性。应综合考虑临床、实验室和放射学数据,以确定最有可能从结核病治疗中获益的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic accuracy of GeneXpert Ultra for tuberculosis in weakly positive results.

Background: The GeneXpert Ultra assay has improved sensitivity for tuberculosis diagnosis, but it is associated with an increased rate of false positive results, particularly in weakly positive categories.

Aim: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the GeneXpert Ultra assay by comparing 3 approaches to interpreting weakly positive results.

Methods: We collected laboratory data from 620 (all) individuals referred to the tuberculosis laboratory affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences laboratory, southern Islamic Republic of Iran, between 21 March 2022 and 20 March 2023. We performed GeneXpert Ultra, acid-fast bacilli smear microscopy and culture, and used results from the culture as reference standard for calculating diagnostic accuracy indices. We analysed the weakly positive results (trace and very low) using 3 approaches in which they were classified as positive or negative, or excluded from the analysis. We used SPSS version 22.0 to describe the characteristics of the participants, MedCalc version 20.104 to analyse the data and 2-tailed binomial test to compare the diagnostic indices. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: GeneXpert 1 showed a low positive predictive value (68.60%) and lower specificity (90.72%) than smear microscopy (95.46%). Compared with GeneXpert 2, GeneXpert 1 demonstrated higher sensitivity (98.99%) and negative predictive value (99.77%), while GeneXpert 2 showed higher specificity (97.32%) and positive predictive value (87.66%). GeneXpert 3 showed high sensitivity (98.92%) and negative predictive value (99.77%), as well as high specificity (97.13%) and positive predictive value (87.60%), resulting in the highest overall accuracy (97.43%) and agreement with culture (Fleiss' kappa = 0.91).

Conclusion: Weakly positive GeneXpert Ultra results should not be interpreted automatically as either negative or positive. Clinic, laboratory and radiologic data should be considered together to identify patients most likely to benefit from tuberculosis treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书