Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21326275›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2011

Towards a point-of-care test for active tuberculosis: obstacles and opportunities.

Ruth McNerney, Peter Daley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 205 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ruth McNerneyDepartment of Pathogen Molecular Biology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. Ruth.Mcnerney@lshtm.ac.uk
Peter Daley
Memorial University of Newfoundland · CAUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limited access to diagnostic services and the poor performance of current tests result in a failure to detect millions of tuberculosis cases each year. An accurate test that could be used at the point of care to allow faster initiation of treatment would decrease death rates and could reduce disease transmission. Previous attempts to develop such a test have failed, and success will require the marriage of biomarkers that are highly predictive for the disease with innovative technology that is reliable and affordable. Here, we review the status of research into point-of-care tests for active tuberculosis and discuss barriers to the development of such diagnostic tests.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsGlobal HealthHealth Services AccessibilityHumansSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID21326275
OpenAlexW2012144531

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.