Markers to differentiate between Kaposi's sarcoma and tuberculous pleural effusions in HIV-positive patients

Efficacy of Xpert in tuberculosis diagnosis based on various specimens: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a diagnostic tool that has been shown to significantly improve the accuracy of tuberculosis (TB) detection in clinical settings, with advanced sensitivity and specificity. Early detection of TB can be challenging, but Xpert has improved the efficacy of the diagnostic process. Nevertheless, the accuracy of Xpert varies according to different diagnostic specimens and TB infection sites. Therefore, the selection of adequate specimens is critical when using Xpert to identify suspected TB. As such, we have conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of Xpert for diagnosis of different TB types using several specimens.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of several electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization clinical trials registry center, covering studies published from Jan 2008 to July 2022. Data were extracted using an adapted version of the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. The risk of bias and level of evidence was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RStudio was utilized to analyze the results, employing the meta4diag, robvis, and metafor packages.

Results

After excluding duplicates, a total of 2163 studies were identified, and ultimately, 144 studies from 107 articles were included in the meta-analysis based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy were estimated for various specimens and TB types. In the case of pulmonary TB, Xpert using sputum (0.95 95%CI 0.91-0.98) and gastric juice (0.94 95%CI 0.84-0.99) demonstrated similarly high sensitivity, surpassing other specimen types. Additionally, Xpert exhibited high specificity for detecting TB across all specimen types. For bone and joint TB, Xpert, based on both biopsy and joint fluid specimens, demonstrated high accuracy in TB detection. Furthermore, Xpert effectively detected unclassified extrapulmonary TB and tuberculosis lymphadenitis. However, the Xpert accuracy was not satisfactory to distinguish TB meningitis, tuberculous pleuritis and unclassified TB.

Conclusions

Xpert has exhibited satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for most TB infections, but the efficacy of detection may vary depending on the specimens analyzed. Therefore, selecting appropriate specimens for Xpert analysis is essential, as using inadequate specimens can reduce the ability to distinguish TB.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=370111, identifier CRD42022370111.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion: A systematic review and comparative meta-analysis

Objective

We compared diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) assays for diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE), through systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase databases for publications reporting diagnostic accuracy of Xpert or Ultra for TPE. We used bivariate random-effects modeling to summarize diagnostic accuracy information from individual studies using either mycobacterial culture or composite criteria as reference standard. We performed meta-regression through hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) modeling to evaluate comparative performance of the two tests from studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of both in the same study population.

Results

We retrieved 1097 publications, and included 74 for review. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity for Xpert were 0.52 (95% CI 0.43–0.60, I² 82.1%) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99, I² 85.1%), respectively, using culture-based reference standard; and 0.21 (95% CI 0.17–0.26, I² 81.5%) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99–1.00, I² 37.6%), respectively, using composite reference standard. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity for Ultra were 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.79, I² 80.0%) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.97–0.99, I² 92.1%), respectively, using culture-based reference standard; and 0.47 (95% CI 0.40–0.55, I² 64.1%) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.95–0.99, I² 54.8%), respectively, using composite reference standard. HSROC meta-regression yielded relative diagnostic odds ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 0.65–2.50) and 1.80 (95% CI 0.41–7.84) respectively in favor of Ultra, using culture and composite criteria as reference standard.

Conclusion

Ultra provides superior diagnostic accuracy over Xpert for diagnosing TPE, mainly because of its higher sensitivity.

Accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion

Background

Tuberculosis poses a severe threat to human health. At present, compared with the traditional diagnostic methods for tuberculosis pleural effusion, such as Löwenstein–Jensen culture, pleural biopsy, and Ziehl–Neelsen smear microscopy, Xpert MTB/RIF was regarded as an emerging technology for its efficiency. The Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy for tuberculous pleural effusion diagnosis was evaluated in this systematic study.

Materials and methods

We searched the relevant literature published before January 2021 in PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. Utilizing Review Manager 5.3 software, the quality of the included literature was evaluated based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, and the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and analyzed with Metadisc 1.40 software. We used Stata 12.0 software to evaluate the publication bias of this study.

Results

Eighteen articles were identified in total. The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF in the pleural effusion was 0.24, and specificity was 1.00, respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9737, which indicated that the overall accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF was high. In addition, based on the Deeks funnel plot, no publication bias of the study was found.

Conclusion

Xpert MTB/RIF is a rapid method with high specificity but relatively low sensitivity for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pleural effusion. Its less sensitivity made it difficult to be used clinically, but the high specificity suggests that it can be used as a specific diagnostic method for tuberculous pleural effusion.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults

BACKGROUND

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020).

OBJECTIVES

To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.

Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a million people were newly diagnosed with rifampicin-resistant TB in 2016. Xpert^® MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended, rapid, automated, nucleic acid amplification assay that is used widely for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum specimens. This Cochrane Review assessed the accuracy of Xpert in extrapulmonary specimens.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert a) for extrapulmonary TB by site of disease in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB; and b) for rifampicin resistance in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry, and ProQuest up to 7 August 2017 without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of Xpert in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. We included TB meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, and disseminated TB. We used culture as the reference standard. For pleural TB, we also included a composite reference standard, which defined a positive result as the presence of granulomatous inflammation or a positive culture result. For rifampicin resistance, we used culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus as the reference standard.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. We determined pooled predicted sensitivity and specificity for TB, grouped by type of extrapulmonary specimen, and for rifampicin resistance. For TB detection, we used a bivariate random-effects model. Recognizing that use of culture may lead to misclassification of cases of extrapulmonary TB as 'not TB' owing to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, we adjusted accuracy estimates by applying a latent class meta-analysis model. For rifampicin resistance detection, we performed univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. We used theoretical populations with an assumed prevalence to provide illustrative numbers of patients with false positive and false negative results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 unique studies that evaluated 16,213 specimens for detection of extrapulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance. We identified only one study that evaluated the newest test version, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), for TB meningitis. Fifty studies (76%) took place in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains and was high or unclear for the reference standard domain (most of these studies decontaminated sterile specimens before culture inoculation). Regarding applicability, in the patient selection domain, we scored high or unclear concern for most studies because either patients were evaluated exclusively as inpatients at tertiary care centres, or we were not sure about the clinical settings.Pooled Xpert sensitivity (defined by culture) varied across different types of specimens (31% in pleural tissue to 97% in bone or joint fluid); Xpert sensitivity was > 80% in urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue. Pooled Xpert specificity (defined by culture) varied less than sensitivity (82% in bone or joint tissue to 99% in pleural fluid and urine). Xpert specificity was ≥ 98% in cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, urine, and peritoneal fluid.Xpert testing in cerebrospinal fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) against culture were 71.1% (60.9% to 80.4%) and 98.0% (97.0% to 98.8%), respectively (29 studies, 3774 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have TB meningitis on culture, 89 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 18 (20%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 911 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have TB (false-negatives).For TB meningitis, ultra sensitivity and specificity against culture (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 90% (55% to 100%) and 90% (83% to 95%), respectively (one study, 129 participants).Xpert testing in pleural fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 50.9% (39.7% to 62.8%) and 99.2% (98.2% to 99.7%), respectively (27 studies, 4006 specimens; low-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 150 have pleural TB on culture, 83 would be Xpert-positive: of these, seven (8%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 917 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 74 (8%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing in urineXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 82.7% (69.6% to 91.1%) and 98.7% (94.8% to 99.7%), respectively (13 studies, 1199 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 70 have genitourinary TB on culture, 70 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 12 (17%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 930 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 12 (1%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing for rifampicin resistanceXpert pooled sensitivity (20 studies, 148 specimens) and specificity (39 studies, 1088 specimens) were 95.0% (89.7% to 97.9%) and 98.7% (97.8% to 99.4%), respectively (high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 120 have rifampicin-resistant TB, 125 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 11 (9%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); and 875 would be negative for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 6 (1%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).For lymph node TB, the accuracy of culture, the reference standard used, presented a greater concern for bias than in other forms of extrapulmonary TB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB, Xpert may be helpful in confirming the diagnosis. Xpert sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens, while for most specimens, specificity is high, the test rarely yielding a positive result for people without TB (defined by culture). Xpert is accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. For people with presumed TB meningitis, treatment should be based on clinical judgement, and not withheld solely on an Xpert result, as is common practice when culture results are negative.

Is Xpert MTB/RIF appropriate for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy with pleural fluid samples? A systematic review

Background

Tuberculous pleurisy (TP) presents a diagnostic problem due to the limitations of traditional diagnostic methods. Different studies with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay have drawn variable conclusions about its values in TP diagnosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether the Xpert MTB/RIF assay is appropriate for the diagnosis of TP using pleural fluid samples.

Methods

A systematic search of four literature databases in English and Chinese language was performed to identify studies involving the use of Xpert MTB/RIF in patients with TP confirmed by plural biopsy and/or mycobacterial culture. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and accordance proportion were calculated, and the forest plots were generated to assess the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for TP diagnosis.

Results

We identified 23 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF were 30% (95% CI: 21–42%, I² = 87.93%) and 99% (95% CI: 97–100%, I² = 96.20%), respectively, and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) of Xpert MTB/RIF was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83–0.89). Compared with drug susceptibility testing (DST), the pooled accordance rate of Xpert MTB/RIF in detecting rifampicin-susceptible cases and rifampicin-resistant cases was 99% (95% CI: 95–104%, I² = 8.7%) and 94% (95% CI: 86–102%), respectively.

Conclusions

Our analysis suggests that the Xpert MTB/RIF assay is of limited value as a screening test for TP but has a high potential for confirming TP diagnosis and differentiating TP from non-TB diseases using pleural fluid samples.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-018-3196-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

GeneXpert technology. A breakthrough for the diagnosis of tuberculous pericarditis and pleuritis in less than 2 hours

Objectives:

To evaluate the diagnostic validity of GeneXpert for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in pericardial and pleural effusions samples.

Methods:

A cross sectional study was conducted at the Mycobacteriology Laboratory, Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan. A total of 286 (158 pleural and 128 pericardial fluids) samples were received from tuberculosis (TB) suspects between January 2014 and August 2016. Every sample was processed for Ziehl-Neelsen (Zn) smear, Lowenstein Jensen (LJ) culture, GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay according to standard protocols. Validity of GeneXpert assay for the detection of MTB was evaluated using LJ culture as gold standard.

Results:

Out of 286 effusions samples, MTB was isolated by LJ culture in 51 (17.8%) samples followed by GeneXpert in 43 (15%), and acid- fast bacilli (AFB) was detected by Zn smear microscopy in 11 (3.8%) samples. GeneXpert showed high sensitivity (84.3%), specificity (100%), with positive predictive value (100%), and negative predictive value (96.7%), while Zn smear showed sensitivity 18.3%, specificity 99.1%, positive predictive value 81.8%, and negative predictive value 85.4%. A strikingly high sensitivity of 72.2% was observed for pericardial fluid by GeneXpert.

Conclusion:

GeneXpert assay is an innovative tool, for prompt detection of MTB and drug resistance. It is definitely an attractive point of care test, with high sensitivity and specificity along with turn around time of 2 hours, which facilitates timely diagnosis and appropriate management of TB pleuritis and pericarditis.

Challenges in pleural tuberculosis diagnosis: existing reference standards and nucleic acid tests

Pleural tuberculosis (pTB) is a grave form of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Microbiological tests are usually found to be inadequate for pTB diagnosis. The absence of a uniform 'composite reference standard' is challenging; therefore, diagnosis is usually performed using a combination of diversified criteria. Nucleic acid tests vary in diagnostic accuracy and have not yet been integrated into clinical decision making. This review assesses the varied criteria used for pTB classification and the challenges afflicting pleural fluid-based DNA diagnostic tests, namely, PCR and Xpert^® MTB/RIF. In the 58 studies (PCR: n = 33; Xpert: n = 25) analyzed, reference standards were heterogeneous and PCR/Xpert pooled sensitivity values (range: 0-100%) were inadequate. However, the consistent high specificity of Xpert (range: 90-100%) indicated its utility as a 'rule-in' test. There is an urgent need to evaluate existing and new molecular tests in well-designed studies  to accurately assess their utility for pTB diagnosis. To conclude, rapid and accurate tests are warranted for pTB diagnosis.

Diagnostic Performance of Xpert MTB/RIF in Tuberculous Pleural Effusion: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

A systematic review investigating the role of Xpert MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) was conducted. The pooled sensitivities and specificities of Xpert MTB/RIF were 51.4% and 98.6%, respectively, with culture used as a reference standard and 22.7% and 99.8%, respectively, with a composite reference standard (CRS) used as the benchmark. Xpert MTB/RIF has low sensitivity but excellent specificity in the diagnosis of TPE.