Back

Pooled sputum testing for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis by Xpert(R) MTB/RIF Ultra: a multi-site cross-sectional diagnostic evaluation study in Bangladesh

Rahman, S. M. M.; Miah, S.; Rahman, T.; Choudhury, S.; Ruhee, N. N.; Kabir, S.; Mafij Uddin, M. K.; Ahmed, S.; Iem, V.; Byrne, R. L.; Cubas Atienzar, A. I.; Garg, T.; Creswell, J. I.; Wingfield, T.; Banu, S.; Start4All Investigators,

2026-03-22 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.03.19.26348771 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundXpert(R) MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) is a WHO recommended molecular test for rapid tuberculosis (TB) detection, but cartridge cost limits large-scale use of Xpert Ultra in high TB burden, resource-constrained countries. This study assessed the diagnostic performance of Xpert Ultra on pooled sputum for detection of pulmonary TB (PTB)in Bangladesh. MethodsBetween July 2024 and February 2025, adults with presumptive PTB were prospectively enrolled from primary and secondary healthcare facilities through facility-based case finding, and from urban slum communities through community-based case finding. Participants provided two sputum samples, one for individual and pooled Xpert Ultra testing, and another for culture. Pooled and individual Xpert Ultra results were compared to the microbiological reference standard of culture. Cost analysis was performed by comparing cartridge usage between individual and pooled Xpert Ultra testing. ResultsA total of 3043 individuals were tested individually and as part of 771 pooled samples. Compared with culture, the overall sensitivities of pooled and individual Xpert Ultra were 85.8% (95% CI: 79.8-90.6) and 89.2% (83.7-93.4), respectively, while specificities were 98.9% (98.4-99.2) and 98.1% (97.5-98.6). Pooled Xpert Ultra detected 100% of the high, medium, and low burden categories identified by individual testing, but showed lower detection for very low (81.8%) and trace (31.4%). Compared with individual testing, pooled testing reduced cartridge use and cost by 55.8%. ConclusionsPooled sputum testing with Xpert Ultra demonstrated high diagnostic performance similar to individual testing, while substantially reducing the cartridge costs. This approach offers a scalable molecular TB testing in resource-limited, high-burden countries such as Bangladesh.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.4%
2
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.1%
3
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.3%
4
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.8%
5
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
6
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
7
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
9
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
11
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.7%
12
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.0%
14
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
15
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
16
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
17
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
19
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
20
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
21
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
23
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.9%
24
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
29
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
30
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%