ArticleInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2017
The Direct Comparison of Two Interferon-gamma Release Assays in the Tuberculosis Screening of Japanese Healthcare Workers.
Article in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk of Occupational Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Health Personnel Measured by Interferon-Gamma Release Assays in Low Incidence Countries-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Changes in Cell-Mediated Immunity (IFN-γ and Granzyme B) Following Influenza Vaccination.Viruses · 2021Article
- Risk Analysis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Health Workers Compared to Employees in Other Sectors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Two interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs), the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT), are commercially available. The agreement between the two IGRAs in the screening of healthcare workers (HCWs) for latent tuberculosis is not well known. Methods The QFT-GIT and T-SPOT tests were performed for the baseline tuberculosis screening of 654 HCWs who worked at Mie University Hospital in Japan. The results of the two tests were directly compared. Results Nineteen (2.9%), 28 (4.3%) and 33 (5.0%) of the 654 HCWs were found to be positive by the QFT-GIT, T-SPOT, and the QFT-GIT and/or T-SPOT methods using cut-off values of 0.35 IU/mL (QFT-GIT) and 6 spots (T-SPOT). After excluding 4 cases with indeterminate results, there were 14 concordant positive (2.2%), 618 concordant negative (95.1%), and 18 discordant (2.8%) results using the cut-off values of 0.35 IU/mL (QFT-GIT) and 6 spots (T-SPOT). The agreement of the two IGRAs was 97.2% (κ=0.595). When cut-off values of 0.35 IU/mL (QFT-GIT) and 8 spots (T-SPOT) were applied, there were 11 concordant positive (1.7%), 626 concordant negative (96.3%), and 13 discordant (2.0%) results, with 98.0% agreement (κ=0.618). When the borderline criteria for the QFT-GIT (0.1 to <0.35 IU/mL) and T-SPOT (5-7 spots) were applied, there were 11 concordant positive (1.7%), 11 concordant borderline (1.7%), 586 concordant negative (90.2%), and 42 discordant (6.5%) results, with 93.5% agreement between the two methods (κ=0.538). Conclusion When standard cut-off values were used, the agreement between the two IGRAs in the tuberculosis screening of Japanese HCWs was moderate to high. Importantly, some HCWs showed discordant results, especially those whose results were in the borderline zones.
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.