Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17564490›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2007

Commercial serological antibody detection tests for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review.

Karen R Steingart, Megan Henry, Suman Laal, Philip C Hopewell, Andrew Ramsay, Dick Menzies, Jane Cunningham, Karin Weldingh, Madhukar Pai

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 102 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 237 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Nontubercular mycobacterial cough.BMJ case reports · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Revisiting the methods for detectingAccess microbiology · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Karen R SteingartDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Megan Henry
Suman Laal
Philip C Hopewell
Andrew Ramsay
Dick Menzies
Jane Cunningham
Karin Weldingh
Madhukar Pai
San Francisco General Hospital · USWorld Health Organization · CHCalifornia Department of Health Care Services · USMcGill University · CAMontreal Heart Institute · CAStatens Serum Institut · DKVeterans Health Administration · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global tuberculosis epidemic results in nearly 2 million deaths and 9 million new cases of the disease a year. The vast majority of tuberculosis patients live in developing countries, where the diagnosis of tuberculosis relies on the identification of acid-fast bacilli on unprocessed sputum smears using conventional light microscopy. Microscopy has high specificity in tuberculosis-endemic countries, but modest sensitivity which varies among laboratories (range 20% to 80%). Moreover, the sensitivity is poor for paucibacillary disease (e.g., pediatric and HIV-associated tuberculosis). Thus, the development of rapid and accurate new diagnostic tools is imperative. Immune-based tests are potentially suitable for use in low-income countries as some test formats can be performed at the point of care without laboratory equipment. Currently, dozens of distinct commercial antibody detection tests are sold in developing countries. The question is "do they work?" METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a systematic review to assess the accuracy of commercial antibody detection tests for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Studies from all countries using culture and/or microscopy smear for confirmation of pulmonary tuberculosis were eligible. Studies with fewer than 50 participants (25 patients and 25 control participants) were excluded. In a comprehensive search, we identified 68 studies. The results demonstrate that (1) overall, commercial tests vary widely in performance; (2) sensitivity is higher in smear-positive than smear-negative samples; (3) in studies of smear-positive patients, Anda-TB IgG by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay shows limited sensitivity (range 63% to 85%) and inconsistent specificity (range 73% to 100%); (4) specificity is higher in healthy volunteers than in patients in whom tuberculosis disease is initially suspected and subsequently ruled out; and (5) there are insufficient data to determine the accuracy of most commercial tests in smear microscopy-negative patients, as well as their performance in children or persons with HIV infection.

conclusionsNone of the commercial tests evaluated perform well enough to replace sputum smear microscopy. Thus, these tests have little or no role in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Lack of methodological rigor in these studies was identified as a concern. It will be important to review the basic science literature evaluating serological tests for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis to determine whether useful antigens have been described but their potential has not been fully exploited. Activities leading to the discovery of new antigens with immunodiagnostic potential need to be intensified.

Indexed as

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayReagent Kits, DiagnosticAdultAgglutination TestsAntibodies, BacterialBlood PreservationBlotting, WesternChildComorbidityDeveloping CountriesHIV InfectionsHumansImmunoglobulin GKaolinMycobacterium tuberculosisPredictive Value of TestsAntibodies, BacterialImmunoglobulin GKaolinReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID17564490
PMCPMC1891320
OpenAlexW2057995877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.