ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2015
Performance of a rapid strip test for the serologic diagnosis of latent tuberculosis in children.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interferon-Gamma Release Assays Versus Tuberculin Skin Test for Active Tuberculosis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of serological assays for the diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis disease: a study protocol.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Improved Serodiagnostic Sensitivity of Strip Test for Latent Tuberculosis.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe serodiagnostic tests for tuberculosis (TB) present a high variability in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Data on patients with latent TB infection (LTBI) and children in high prevalence settings are still limited. The present study aimed to evaluate an in-house strip test for detection of anti-M. tuberculosis antibodies in TB patients, mostly children aged under 15 y, grouped into four diagnostic categories: active TB, LTBI, healthy TB contacts, and other non-TB diseases. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe diagnostic performance of strip test was compared with the tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA). Sensitivity and specificity were assessed for all three diagnostic tests. The detection accuracy among the tests was calculated by using a receiver operating characteristic analysis.
resultsTST and IGRA could diagnose the active TB cases correctly (100%). The sensitivity of strip test for active TB was 58.3% and 37.5% for LTBI, while the sensitivities of TST and IGRA for LTBI were 90.3% and 37.5%, respectively. The overall specificities of strip test and IGRA were 91.5% and 95.7%, respectively, which were superior to that of TST (68.1%).
conclusionThe strip test did not appear to be useful for diagnosis of active TB in comparison with the current diagnostic standard. The assay may be particularly significant in situations where TB is clinically difficult to diagnose like LTBI and could be a meaningful tool in terms of high specificity and simplicity for ruling in pediatric TB in countries with high TB infection rate. Further studies are needed to determine whether strip test can be improved in its sensitivity and should be implemented into routine clinical practice.
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.