The Acid-Fast Bacilli Smear: Hail and Farewell.

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.

1. The diagnostic value of Xpert detection combined with nanopore sequencing for tuberculosis in HIV/AIDS patients.Infectious medicine · 2026
   Article
2. Distilling knowledge from graph neural networks trained on cell graphs to non-neural student models.Scientific reports · 2025
   Article
3. Performance of Xpert MTB/RIF and acid-fast bacilli smear microscopy for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis using bronchoalveolar lavage samples in negative or sputum-scarce adults in Colombia: a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025
   Article
4. Respiratory Isolation for Tuberculosis: A Historical Perspective.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025
   Article
5. Tuberculosis in pregnancy.Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Xpert MTB/RIF Assay as a Substitute for Smear Microscopy in an Intermediate-Burden Setting.2019

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as