Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26587178›Full record

ReviewThe Pan African medical journal2015

Using giant African pouched rats to detect human tuberculosis: a review.

Alan Poling, Amanda Mahoney, Negussie Beyene, Georgies Mgode, Bart Weetjens, Christophe Cox, Amy Durgin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Pan African medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. I'm Not Like the Others: Atypical Research Subjects in JEAB Publications.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alan PolingDepartment of Psychology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008, United States of America ; APOPO, Tanzania.
Amanda MahoneyAPOPO, Tanzania.
Negussie BeyeneAPOPO, Tanzania.
Georgies MgodeAPOPO, Tanzania ; Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania.
Bart WeetjensAPOPO, Tanzania.
Christophe CoxAPOPO, Tanzania.
Amy DurginAPOPO, Tanzania.
Tanzania National Parks · TZSokoine University of Agriculture · TZWestern Michigan University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite its characteristically low sensitivity, sputum smear microscopy remains the standard for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) in resource-poor countries. In an attempt to develop an alternative or adjunct to microscopy, researchers have recently examined the ability of pouched rats to detect TB-positive human sputum samples and the microbiological variables that affect their detection. Ten published studies, reviewed herein, suggest that the rats are able to detect the specific odor of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which causes TB, and can substantially increase new-case detections when used for second-line TB screening following microscopy. Further research is needed to ascertain the rats' ability to detect TB in children and in HIV-positive patients, to detect TB when used for first-line screening, and to be useful in broad-scale applications where cost-effectiveness is a major consideration.

Indexed as

AnimalsDiagnostic Techniques and ProceduresHumansMass ScreeningMicroscopyMycobacterium tuberculosisOdorantsRodentiaSputumTuberculosisdiscrimination learningmycobacterium tuberculosisoperant conditioningpouched ratsscent detectionTuberculosis detection

Identifiers

PMID26587178
PMCPMC4634033
OpenAlexW1215339682

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.