ArticleScientific reports2017
Comparison of laboratory testing methods for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Granzyme A as biomarker for diagnosis in tuberculous pleural effusion.JCI insight · 2024Article
- Biomarkers for distinguishing tuberculous pleural effusion from non-tuberculosis effusion: a retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Application of Adenosine Deaminase and γ-Interferon Release Assay in Pleural Fluid for the Diagnosis of Tuberculous Pleural Effusion in Patients Over 40 Years Old.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- The incidence of tuberculous pleurisy in mainland China from 2005 to 2018.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Beware of Pleural Thickening and Calcification: An Enlightenment from a Case of Tuberculous Pleurisy.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Article
- Application of real-time simultaneous amplification and testing method to accurately and rapidly detect extra-pulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the RT-LAMP and LAMP methods for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Biomarkers in the diagnosis of pleural diseases: a 2018 update.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the diagnostic utilities of different methods for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis) detection in pleural fluid that represent potentially cost-effective measures for resource-limited settings in China. We compared diagnostic characteristics of the AmpSure simultaneous amplification and testing method, the BACTEC MGIT 960 system, and acid-fast bacilli staining of specimen smears for detection of M. tuberculosis in pleural fluids of 438 patients with suspected tuberculous pleurisy. Chest radiographs, computed tomography scans and the results of sputum and pleural biopsy testing were used for confirmations of tuberculosis diagnoses. The sensitivity of the AmpSure test (21.2%) was significantly higher than that of smear analysis (3.1%; p < 0.001), but was similar to that of the BACTEC culture method (17.8%; p > 0.05). The specificity of the AmpSure, BACTEC, and smear tests were 100%, 96.4%, and 100%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values of the AmpSure, BACTEC, and smear tests were 100%/23.1%; 78.6%/19.8%; and 100%/22.4%, respectively. The sensitivity of ADA, IFNγ and histopathological analyses of pleural biopsies were all 100%. The sensitivities of all three methods were suboptimal for the detection of M. tuberculosis in pleural fluid. Future studies of a composite diagnostic index consisting of a combination of these tests are warranted.
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.