ArticleBMC public health2007
PCR colorimetric dot-blot assay and clinical pretest probability for diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in smear-negative patients.
Article in BMC public health, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smear plus Detect-TB for a sensitive diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis in an incarcerated population.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of PCR for the rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSmear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (SNPTB) accounts for 30% of Pulmonary Tuberculosis (PTB) cases reported annually in developing nations. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) may provide an alternative for the rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB); however little data are available regarding the clinical utility of PCR in SNPTB, in a setting with a high burden of TB/HIV co-infection.
methodsTo evaluate the performance of the PCR dot-blot in parallel with pretest probability (Clinical Suspicion) in patients suspected of having SNPTB, a prospective study of 213 individuals with clinical and radiological suspicion of SNPTB was carried out from May 2003 to May 2004, in a TB/HIV reference hospital. Respiratory specialists estimated the pretest probability of active disease into high, intermediate, low categories. Expectorated sputum was examined by direct microscopy (Ziehl-Neelsen staining), culture (Lowenstein Jensen) and PCR dot-blot. Gold standard was based on culture positivity combined with the clinical definition of PTB.
resultsIn smear-negative and HIV subjects, active PTB was diagnosed in 28.4% (43/151) and 42.2% (19/45), respectively. In the high, intermediate and low pretest probability categories active PTB was diagnosed in 67.4% (31/46), 24% (6/25), 7.5% (6/80), respectively. PCR had sensitivity of 65% (CI 95%: 50%-78%) and specificity of 83% (CI 95%: 75%-89%). There was no difference in the sensitivity of PCR in relation to HIV status. PCR sensitivity and specificity among non-previously TB treated and those treated in the past were, respectively: 69%, 43%, 85% and 80%. The high pretest probability, when used as a diagnostic test, had sensitivity of 72% (CI 95%:57%-84%) and specificity of 86% (CI 95%:78%-92%). Using the PCR dot-blot in parallel with high pretest probability as a diagnostic test, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were: 90%, 71%, 75%, and 88%, respectively. Among non-previously TB treated and HIV subjects, this approach had sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 91%, 79%, 81%, 90%, and 90%, 65%, 72%, 88%, respectively.
conclusionPCR dot-blot associated with a high clinical suspicion may provide an important contribution to the diagnosis of SNPTB mainly in patients that have not been previously treated attended at a TB/HIV reference hospital.
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.