Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21857806›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2011

Commercial serological tests for the diagnosis of active pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karen R Steingart, Laura L Flores, Nandini Dendukuri, Ian Schiller, Suman Laal, Andrew Ramsay, Philip C Hopewell, Madhukar Pai

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Revolutionizing diagnosis of pulmonaryFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Mce transport systems inJournal of bacteriology · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Antigen specificity shapes antibody functions in tuberculosis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

47 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

8 authors.

Karen R SteingartDepartment of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Laura L Flores
Nandini Dendukuri
Ian Schiller
Suman Laal
Andrew Ramsay
Philip C Hopewell
Madhukar Pai

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSerological (antibody detection) tests for tuberculosis (TB) are widely used in developing countries. As part of a World Health Organization policy process, we performed an updated systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercial serological tests for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB with a focus on the relevance of these tests in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS AND

findingsWe used methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and GRADE approach for rating quality of evidence. In a previous review, we searched multiple databases for papers published from 1 January 1990 to 30 May 2006, and in this update, we add additional papers published from that period until 29 June 2010. We prespecified subgroups to address heterogeneity and summarized test performance using bivariate random effects meta-analysis. For pulmonary TB, we included 67 studies (48% from low- and middle-income countries) with 5,147 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (31% to 100%). For anda-TB IgG, the only test with enough studies for meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity was 76% (95% CI 63%-87%) in smear-positive (seven studies) and 59% (95% CI 10%-96%) in smear-negative (four studies) patients; pooled specificities were 92% (95% CI 74%-98%) and 91% (95% CI 79%-96%), respectively. Compared with ELISA (pooled sensitivity 60% [95% CI 6%-65%]; pooled specificity 98% [95% CI 96%-99%]), immunochromatographic tests yielded lower pooled sensitivity (53%, 95% CI 42%-64%) and comparable pooled specificity (98%, 95% CI 94%-99%). For extrapulmonary TB, we included 25 studies (40% from low- and middle-income countries) with 1,809 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (59% to 100%). Overall, quality of evidence was graded very low for studies of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB.

conclusionsDespite expansion of the literature since 2006, commercial serological tests continue to produce inconsistent and imprecise estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Quality of evidence remains very low. These data informed a recently published World Health Organization policy statement against serological tests. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Indexed as

Antibodies, BacterialAntigens, BacterialBiasDeveloping CountriesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansMycobacterium tuberculosisSensitivity and SpecificitySerologic TestsTuberculosisTuberculosis, PulmonaryAntibodies, BacterialAntigens, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID21857806
PMCPMC3153457

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.