ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2003
Use of equivocal zone in interpretation of results of the amplified mycobacterium tuberculosis direct test for diagnosis of tuberculosis.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Fluorotype MTB for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex DNA in clinical specimens from a low-incidence country.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Clinical evaluation of the gen-probe amplified mycobacterium tuberculosis direct test for rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis lymphadenitis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2004Article
- Comparison of the real-time PCR method and the Gen-Probe amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct test for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pulmonary and nonpulmonary specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2004Article
- Relevance of commercial amplification methods for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in clinical samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The sensitivity and specificity of the Amplified Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct (AMTD) test, evaluated with 1,363 respiratory samples (128 from tuberculous patients), were 92.97 and 98.7%, respectively. When an equivocal zone (30,000 to 1,000,000 relative light units [RLU]) was used instead of a 30,000-RLU cutoff, the sensitivity and specificity of the AMTD test were 92.97 and 100%, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.