ArticleChinese medical journal2017
Diagnostic Significance of
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Tuberculosis: Clinical Challenges and Opportunities.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
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
backgroundActive tuberculosis (TB) with negative results of sputum smear is difficult to be identified. Till now, there is no effective and noninvasive diagnostic method. This study evaluated the diagnostic power of Mycobacterium tuberculosis T-cell (T.SPOT®.TB) assays for active TB.
methodsWe retrospectively screened 450 suspected TB patients that were hospitalized in the Respiratory Department of Henan Province People's Hospital from June 2015 to June 2016. The patients were divided into the active, previous, and non-TB groups according to their final diagnosis. We evaluated the diagnostic value of the T-SPOT®.TB assay by constructing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calculating the optimal diagnostic cutoff value. In addition, we compared the levels of A antigen (ESAT-6) and B antigen (CFP-10) in active TB.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of T-SPOT®.TB for active TB were 89.78%, 63.16%, 0.56, 0.92, 2.47, and 0.16, respectively. For active TB, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the A antigen (0.89) was higher than that of the B antigen (0.86). The AUC of the A antigen for active TB was largest at a cutoff value of 13.5 spot-forming cells (SFCs) per 2.5 × 105 peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). The AUC of the A and B antigens was 0.60 and 0.58 for previous TB. The levels of A and B antigen in the active TB group were significantly different from those in the previous- and non-TB groups (A antigen: χ2 = 105.41, P< 0.01 and B antigen: χ2 = 91.03, P< 0.01; A antigen: χ2 = 12.99, P< 0.01 and B antigen: χ2 = 8.56, P< 0.01, respectively). There were no significant differences in the levels of A and B antigens between the non-TB group and previous TB group (A antigen: χ2 = 1.07, P> 0.05 and B antigen: χ2 = 0.77, P> 0.05).
conclusionsT-SPOT®.TB has high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of active TB at a cutoff value of 13.5 SFCs per 2.5 × 105 PBMCs and is not influenced by previous TB.
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.