Trial reportJournal of Korean medical science2015
Acceptability of sputum specimens for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis.
Trial report in Journal of Korean medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predominance of gram-negative multidrug-resistant pathogens causing lower respiratory tract infections among gene X-pert negative presumptive tuberculosis patients in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Bacterial profile, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, and associated factors among lower respiratory tract infection patients attending at Debre Markos comprehensive specialized hospital, Northwest, Ethiopia.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of an in-house multiplex PCR assay and the retrospective surveillance of bacterial respiratory pathogens at a teaching hospital, Kelantan, Malaysia.Pathogens and global health · 2023Article
- Bacterial Species and Inflammatory Cell Variability in Respiratory Tracts of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation: A Multicentric Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Predominance of Other Pathogenic Bacteria among Presumptive Tuberculosis Cases Attending Tuberculosis Clinics in Mwanza, Tanzania: A Cross-Sectional Laboratory-Based Study.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Development of a multiplex real-time PCR assay for the simultaneous detection of four bacterial pathogens causing pneumonia.PloS one · 2021Article
- Evaluation of continuous quality improvement of tuberculosis and HIV diagnostic services in Amhara Public Health Institute, Ethiopia.PloS one · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of the quality of a sputum specimen prior to bacterial culture has been an accepted practice. However, optimal sputum criteria for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) are not well established. We investigated indicators for sputum acceptability in tuberculosis cultures and acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smear. A post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial with 228 sputum specimens from 77 patients was conducted. In the trial, pulmonary TB suspects were requested for collecting three sputum specimens. We performed both TB study (AFB smear and M. tuberculosis culture) and Gram staining in each specimen. By using generalized estimating equations, the association between sputum characteristics and positive TB testings were analyzed. Although acceptable specimens for bacterial pneumonia showed higher TB-culture positive rates than unacceptable specimens (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.11-2.49), a specimen with ≥25 white blood cells/low-power field was the better predictor for positive M. tuberculosis cultures (aOR=2.30; 95% CI=1.48-3.58) and acid-fast bacilli smears (aOR=1.85; 95% CI=1.05-3.25). Sputum leukocytosis could be an indicator of sputum acceptability for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis.
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.