ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2015
Advances in Diagnostic Assays for Tuberculosis.
Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of AI-assisted chest X-ray interpretation tools for TB screening: a rapid HTA.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Review of HIV-Associated Tuberculosis: Clinical Challenges and Advances in Management.Cureus · 2024Review
- Review
- Trends and challenges of multi-drug resistance in childhood tuberculosis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Review
- Accuracy of C-reactive protein and a differentiated white cell count in diagnosing tuberculosis.Southern African journal of infectious diseases · 2023Article
- An isothermal amplification-based point-of-care diagnostic platform for the detection ofCurrent research in biotechnology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Performance of GeneChip for the Rapid Detection of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Different Subgroups of Patients.Infection and drug resistance · 2021Article
- Molecular Diagnosis of Tuberculosis.Chonnam medical journal · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Approximately one-third of the global burden of tuberculosis (TB) remains undiagnosed each year and the vast majority of cases of multidrug-resistant TB remain undetected. Many countries still place heavy reliance on outdated technologies that are blunt and ineffective tools for controlling this epidemic. However, during the past 10 years, there has been substantial progress within the TB diagnostics developmental pipeline. Old technologies have been reviewed and improved and new technologies have been developed and evaluated and are now being implemented. This review summarizes these developments and describes the currently available diagnostic tools. Consideration is given to the requirements of future diagnostic tests and how these should be evaluated not only with regard to their diagnostic accuracy and operational feasibility, but ultimately in terms of whether they impact clinical outcomes cost effectively, especially for those most in need.
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.