Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 3, 2025

Diagnosing Pulmonary Tuberculosis with the Xpert MTB/RIF Test
Published on: April 9, 2012
The Practical Value of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in a High Tuberculosis Burden
Guirong Wang1, Mingxiang Huang2, Hui Jing3
1National Clinical Laboratory on Tuberculosis, Beijing Key Laboratory for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Research, Beijing Chest Hospitalgrid.414341.7, Capital Medical University, Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Abstract:
Due to the probability of decreased specificity, the practical value of performing the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) assay over the Xpert assay for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin (RIF) resistance in a high TB burden setting was evaluated. Participants were recruited consecutively in three tertiary hospitals in China and allocated to the TB case detection and/or rifampicin (RIF) resistance detection group. Each sputum specimen was subjected to smear, MGIT960 liquid culture, and Xpert, and Xpert Ultra assay in parallel. Drug susceptibility testing was conducted for all recovered isolates in the RIF resistance detection group. In total, 1,079 patients were recruited to the case detection group and 450 to the RIF resistance detection group. Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity than Xpert (92.26%, 322/349 versus 89.40%, 312/349; P = 0.006), whereas the most prominent increase was identified in the smear-negative patients (83.70% versus 78.52%; P = 0.039). The specificity of Xpert Ultra was slightly lower than that of Xpert (96.30%, 495/514 versus 98.25%, 505/514; P = 0.055). Reclassifying trace results as negative resulted in a 4.01% loss of sensitivity (from 92.26% to 88.25%) accompanied by a 1.37% gain in specificity (from 96.30% to 97.67%). Both the sensitivity (97.64% versus 99.21%, P = 0.313) and specificity (96.90% versus 97.21%, P = 0.816) of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for detection RIF resistance were comparable. In conclusion, Xpert Ultra could improve the diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary TB in contrast to the Xpert assay. A high percentage of TB history did not significantly decrease the specificity of the test, which supports the potential role of Xpert Ultra as an initial diagnostic tool for TB. IMPORTANCE Xpert Ultra is more sensitive than Xpert, especially in smear-negative TB. A high percentage of TB history in the non-TB population did not significantly affect the reliability of the assay, which supports the potential role of Xpert Ultra as an initial diagnostic tool for TB.
Related Concept Videos
Pulmonary Tuberculosis IV
Several diagnostic approaches are used to detect TB. The conventional method is the Tuberculin Skin Test (TST), also known as the Mantoux test. However, this method has...
Pulmonary Tuberculosis V
Latent tuberculosis infection occurs when TB bacteria are present in a person's body, but are not causing illness or symptoms. It is not contagious, and preventive treatment is crucial to avoid the...
Pulmonary Tuberculosis I
Causative Organism
The primary infectious agent causing tuberculosis is Mycobacterium tuberculosis, a slow-growing, acid-fast, aerobic rod that exhibits sensitivity to heat and ultraviolet light. Instances of Mycobacterium bovis and Mycobacterium avium contributing to the development of TB infection are rare.
Mode of...
Pulmonary Tuberculosis II
Here is a detailed explanation of its pathophysiology:
Transmission: The process begins when a person inhales droplet nuclei containing M. tuberculosis. These are typically released into the air when an individual with pulmonary or...
Pulmonary Tuberculosis III
The first classification is based on the development of the disease, and it includes the following categories:
Pneumonia III: Complications and Assessment

