Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25670962›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2015

Tuberculin skin test and Quantiferon test agreement and influencing factors in tuberculosis screening of healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Monica Lamberti, Rossella Uccello, Maria Grazia Lourdes Monaco, Mariarosaria Muoio, Daniela Feola, Nicola Sannolo, Albert Nienhaus, Paolo Chiodini

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effectiveness of interventions for reducing TB incidence in countries with low TB incidence: a systematic review of reviews.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Monica LambertiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Section of Hygiene, Occupational Medicine and Forensic, Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Rossella Uccello *Department of Experimental Medicine, Section of Hygiene, Occupational Medicine and Forensic, Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Maria Grazia Lourdes Monaco *Department of Experimental Medicine, Section of Hygiene, Occupational Medicine and Forensic, Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Mariarosaria Muoio *Department of Experimental Medicine, Section of Hygiene, Occupational Medicine and Forensic, Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Daniela FeolaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Section of Hygiene, Occupational Medicine and Forensic, Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Nicola SannoloDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Section of Hygiene, Occupational Medicine and Forensic, Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Albert NienhausCenter of Excellence for Epidemiology and Health Services Research for Healthcare Professionals (CVcare), Institute for Health Service Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Paolo ChiodiniMedical Statistics Unit, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the agreement between Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) and Quantiferon (QFT) in screening for tuberculosis (TB) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) and to estimate associations between TST and QFT agreement and variables of interest, such as Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination and incidence of TB.

methodsCross-sectional and longitudinal studies on HCWs, published in English until October 2013, comparing TST and QFT results, were selected. For each study Cohen's κ value and a 95% confidence interval were calculated. Summary measures and indexes of heterogeneity between studies were calculated.

results29 studies were selected comprising a total of 11,434 HCWs. Cohen's κ for agreement between TST and QFT for 24 of them was 0.28 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.35), with the best value in high TB incidence countries and the lowest rate of BCG vaccination.

conclusionCurrently, there is no gold standard for TB screening and the most-used diagnostic tools show low agreement. For evidence-based health surveillance in HCWs, occupational physicians need to consider a number of factors influencing screening results, such as TB incidence, vaccination status, age and working seniority.

Indexed as

Cohen’s kHealthcare workersHealth surveillanceMeta-analysisQuantiferon TB GoldTuberculin skin testTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID25670962
PMCPMC4323208
OpenAlexW2129147297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.