ArticlePloS one2016
Diagnostic Value of Interferon-γ Release Assays on Pericardial Effusion for Diagnosis of Tuberculous Pericarditis.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra vs Unstimulated Interferon γ (IRISA-TB) for the Diagnosis of Tuberculous Pericarditis in a Tuberculosis-Endemic Setting.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Pericarditis caused by Mycobacterium africanum: case report.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Tuberculous Pericarditis: What Is New?Current cardiology reports · 2020Review
- The risk factor of false-negative and false-positive for T-SPOT.TB in active tuberculosis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosis of tuberculous pericarditis remains a challenge. We aimed in this study to evaluate the diagnostic value of T-SPOT.TB on pericardial effusion for diagnosis of tuberculous pericarditis. Patients with suspected tuberculous pericarditis were enrolled consecutively between August 2011 and December 2015. T-SPOT.TB was performed on both pericardial effusion mononuclear cells (PEMCs)and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Sensitivity, specificity, predictive value (PV), and likelihood ratio (LR) of T-SPOT.TB on PEMCs and PBMCs were analyzed. Among the 75 patients enrolled, 24 patients (32%) were diagnosed with tuberculous pericarditis, 38 patients (51%) with nontuberculous pericarditis, and 13 patients (17%) were clinically indeterminate and were excluded from the final analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive PV (PPV), negative PV (NPV), positive LR (LR+), and negative LR (LR-) of T-SPOT.TB on PEMCs was 92%,92%,88%,95%,11.61, and 0.09, respectively, compared to 83%, 95%, 91%, 90%,15.83, and 0.18, respectively of T-SPOT.TB on PBMCs. In patients with tuberculous pericarditis, the median frequencies of spot-forming cells (SFCs) of T-SPOT.TB on PEMCs and PBMCs was 172SFCs/106MCs (IQR 39~486), and 66 SFCs/106MCs (IQR 24~526), respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.183). T-SPOT.TB on PEMCs appeared to be a valuable and rapid diagnostic method for diagnosis of tuberculous pericarditis with high sensitivity and specificity.
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.