ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2016
Staining with two observational methods for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2016. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meningitis diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in rural, northern Uganda: 2015-2024.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Recent advances in microbiological and molecular biological detection techniques of tuberculous meningitis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Juglanin inhibits lung cancer by regulation of apoptosis, ROS and autophagy induction.Oncotarget · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ziehl-Neelsen (Z-N) staining of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for acid-fast bacilli (AFB) is the cornerstone of the laboratory diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM). However, the sensitivity of conventional Z-N staining for the detection of AFB in CSF specimens is suboptimal. The present study aimed to compare the practicality of modified Z-N staining with light microscopy and fluorescence microscopy in the same smear without auramine O. A total of 155 patients with 223 CSF specimens were enrolled and grouped according to the uniform case definition. The smears of each CSF specimen were subjected to modified Z-N staining and then observed using a light microscope under transmitted light and under fluorescence with a green-excitation wavelength in the same microscopic field. The results for different groups, inspection times, and prior to and following treatment were compared. Results indicated that the fuchsin-stained AFB were visible as bright orange-red fluorescing rods under fluorescence, or as red, lightly curved rods under transmitted light. The sensitivity of fluorescence microscopy was 96.2% while that of light microscopy was 84.6%. The positive rate of fluorescence microscopy was 79.2% prior to treatment compared with 61.7% post-treatment. In the same microscopic field, a greater number of AFB were observed using fluorescence compared with transmitted light, and AFB that were not visible under transmitted light were clearly observed under fluorescence. Furthermore, transmitted light and fluorescence could be interchanged directly when equivocal smears were encountered. The combination of modified Z-N staining and fluorescence microscopy without auramine O is sensitive and convenient for the diagnosis of TBM.
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.