ArticleJournal of negative results in biomedicine2011
Diagnosis of tuberculosis: the experience at a specialized diagnostic laboratory.
Article in Journal of negative results in biomedicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of GeneXpert, MODS and the WHO 2007 algorithm for diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2013Pooled it
- Concurrent evaluation of microscopic observation of drug susceptibility assay for pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis.Journal of laboratory physiciansArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work describes the experience at a tuberculosis clinical laboratory where relatively new TB diagnosis technologies; nucleic acid detection of two target strands, IS6110 and devR, by PCR and microscopic observation drug susceptibility (MODS) were used. The LJ culture was the gold standard. This evaluation was done from August 2007 to July 2009 on 463 sputum samples of tuberculosis suspects at a specialized tuberculosis clinic in Delhi, India.None of the tests we evaluated can accurately detect the presence or absence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in all the samples and smear microscopy was found to be the most reliable assay in this study.The PCR assay could detect down to 2 pg of H37Rv DNA. Sensitivity, specificity was 0.40, 0.60 and 0.19, 0.81 for smear positive (n = 228) and negative samples (n = 235) respectively. In the MODS assay, sensitivity, specificity of 0.48, 0.52 and 0.38, 0.76 was observed for smear positive and negative samples. Sputum smear microscopy had sensitivity of 0.77 and specificity of 0.70.
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.