Diagnosis of TB from smear & culture negative sputum specimens by IS 6110 based PCR.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A new diagnostic tool for rapid and accurate detection ofSaudi journal of biological sciences · 2018
   Article
2. Accuracy of a new rapid antigen detection test for pulmonary tuberculosis.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2016
   Article
3. Diagnosis of active tuberculosis disease: From microscopy to molecular techniques.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2016
   Review
4. Educational intervention for collecting sputum for tuberculosis: a quasi-experimental study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2016
   Article
5. Comparison of a DNA Based PCR Approach with Conventional Methods for the Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Morocco.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2012
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as