ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Accuracy of bronchoalveolar lavage enzyme-linked immunospot assay to diagnose smear-negative tuberculosis: a meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Diagnosis of Recurrent Paucibacillary Tuberculosis.Pathogens & immunity · 2022Article
- Parallel Tests Using Culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, and SAT-TB in Sputum Plus Bronchial Alveolar Lavage Fluid Significantly Increase Diagnostic Performance of Smear-Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Antibody Engineering for Pursuing a Healthier Future.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhile the bronchoalveolar lavage enzyme-linked immunospot assay (BAL-ELISPOT) shows promise for diagnosing smear-negative tuberculosis, its accuracy remains controversial. We meta-analyzed the available evidence to obtain a clearer understanding of the diagnostic accuracy.
methodsStudies of the diagnostic performance of ELI-SPOT on smear-negative tuberculosis were identified through systematic searches of the PubMed and EMBASE databases. Pooled data on sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess overall test performance.
resultsA total of 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Diagnostic performance was as follows: sensitivity, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93); specificity, 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81); positive likelihood ratio, 4.2 (95% CI 2.42 to 7.28); negative likelihood ratio, 0.14 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.33); diagnostic odds ratio, 36.16 (95% CI 9.70 to 134.73); and area under the curve, 0.9605 (SEM 0.0247).
conclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that BAL-ELISPOT may perform better than blood-ELISPOT for both screening and confirming a diagnosis of smear-negative tuberculosis. Nevertheless, BAL-ELISPOT should be not used alone but rather in parallel with clinical manifestations and conventional tests to ensure reliable diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26550176PMC4612861W2125364529What 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.