Impact of Xpert MTB/RIF vs smear microscopy: All‐cause mortality at 6 months (subgroup)
Impact of Xpert MTB/RIF showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality at 6 months (subgroup) compared with smear microscopy (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Impact of Xpert MTB/RIF vs smear microscopy All‐cause mortality at 6 months (subgroup) · people being investigated for tuberculosis (TB) Impact of Xpert MTB/RIF showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality at 6 months (subgroup) compared with smear microscopy (moderate certainty). Impact of the diagnostic test Xpert MTB/RIF on patient outcomes for tuberculosis (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.98 [0.78, 1.22] | 3 studies · 8143 participants | Moderate |
Impact of Xpert MTB/RIF vs smear microscopy All‐cause mortality in people who were HIV‐positive (subgroup) · people being investigated for tuberculosis (TB) Impact of Xpert MTB/RIF probably leads to lower all‐cause mortality in people who were HIV‐positive (subgroup) compared with smear microscopy (moderate certainty). Impact of the diagnostic test Xpert MTB/RIF on patient outcomes for tuberculosis (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.8 [0.67, 0.96] | 5 studies · 5855 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact of the diagnostic test Xpert MTB/RIF on patient outcomes for tuberculosis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.