ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
Galactomannan Assay and Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis - Comparison of the Test Performance at an in-house and the Kit Cut-off.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Risk Factors of Patients With Proven Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Effect of involved Aspergillus species on galactomannan in bronchoalveolar lavage of patients with invasive aspergillosis.Journal of medical microbiology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInvasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis (IPA) is an important opportunistic infection with a high degree of mortality and morbidity. Galactomannan assay (GM assay) is found to be useful for diagnosis of IPA in patients with neutropenia. However the utility of this assay has not been evaluated in a mixed patient population with other co-morbid conditions. Though a kit cut-off of 0.5 has been recommended for the diagnosis of IPA, studies have reported a higher sensitivity with cut-offs more than 0.5.
aimTo establish an in-house cut-off and compare its utility with the kit cut-off to diagnose and categorize IPA as proven, probable and possible in patients with varied underlying risk factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis observational study was done in St John's Medical College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India from January 2013-December 2014. GM assay was performed on 25 each of healthy controls and clinically diagnosed cases of IPA. The in-house cut-off was calculated by plotting the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC).
resultsThe in-house cut-off was calculated to be 0.52. Using this and the kit cut-off (0.5), the Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and the Negative Predictive Value (NPV) were found to be 75%, 79%, 76%, 82% and 79%, 71%, 77%, 82% respectively. Diabetes mellitus was found to be associated with more than 50% of the patients.
conclusionThe established in house cut-off using healthy controls and patients with clinical diagnosis of IPA was not significantly different from that of the kit cut-off. Using either of these cut-offs, we could re-categorize two of the possible IPA cases in the probable group. This study helped to understand the clinical utility of this assay even in a mixed patient population with multiple co-morbidities.
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.