ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020
Clinical evaluation of the T-SPOT.TB test for detection of tuberculosis infection in northeastern Guangdong Province, China.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic utility of quantitative interferon-gamma release assays in elderly patients with tuberculosis.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Clinical and Laboratory Discriminators for Tuberculosis and Lymphoma in Adults Presenting with Fever of Unknown Origin: A Prospective Cohort Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Pathogen Detection in Spinal Infections: Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Conventional Microbiological Methods.Current medical science · 2025Article
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
objectiveWe evaluated clinical performance of the T-SPOT.TB test for detecting tuberculosis (TB) infection in Meizhou, China.
methodsWe enrolled 2,868 patients who underwent T-SPOT.TB, smear, and TB-DNA at the same time. The tests' sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and compared in different groups, and in pulmonary TB (PTB) and extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) subgroups. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate T-SPOT.TB's diagnostic value and determine its cutoff value.
resultsT-SPOT.TB, TB-DNA, and sputum smear sensitivity was 61.44%, 37.12%, and 14.02%; and specificity was 76.49%, 99.20% and 99.60%, respectively. The T-SPOT.TB positive rate was higher in the PTB and EPTB subgroups than in patients with other pulmonary diseases (61.38% and 61.76% vs. 23.34%). The T-SPOT.TB test had better diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity when the positive cutoff value of marker ESAT-6 was 2.5 [area under ROC curve = 0.701, 95%CI 0.687-0.715] and marker CFP-10 was 6.5 [area under ROC curve = 0.669, 95%CI 0.655-0.683].
conclusionT-SPOT.TB sensitivity was higher than that of TB-DNA or sputum smear, but the specificity was lower. T-SPOT.TB had moderate sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing TB. T-SPOT.TB's new positive cutoff value may be clinically valuable according to ROC analysis.
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.