ArticlePloS one2020
Evaluation of multi-antigen serological screening for active tuberculosis among people living with HIV.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning in HIV Care and Antiretroviral Therapy: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- A network pharmacology-based approach to understand the mechanism of action of anti-mycobacterial activity of Acacia nilotica: a modelling and experimental study.Molecular diversity · 2025Article
- The use of artificial intelligence in sexual and reproductive health: a comprehensive scoping review.npj women's health · 2025Article
- In silico design ofHeliyon · 2024Article
- Serological analysis reveals differential antibody responses between TB patients and latently infected individuals from the TB endemic country of Mozambique.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A systematic review of potential screening biomarkers for active TB disease.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Better triage tests for screening tuberculosis (TB) disease are needed for people living with HIV (PLHIV). We performed the first evaluation of a previously-validated 8-antigen serological panel to screen PLHIV for pulmonary TB in Kampala, Uganda. We selected a random 1:1 sample with and without TB (defined by sputum culture) from a cohort of PLHIV initiating antiretroviral therapy. We used a multiplex microbead immunoassay and an ensemble machine learning classifier to determine the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for Ag85A, Ag85B, Ag85C, Rv0934-P38, Rv3881, Rv3841-BfrB, Rv3873, and Rv2878c. We then assessed the performance with the addition of four TB-specific antigens ESAT-6, CFP-10, Rv1980-MPT64, and Rv2031-HSPX, and every antigen combination. Of 262 participants (median CD4 cell-count 152 cells/μL [IQR 65-279]), 138 (53%) had culture-confirmed TB. The 8-antigen panel had an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI 0.40-0.66), and the additional 4 antigens did not improve performance (AUC 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.64). When sensitivity was restricted to ≥90% for the 8- and 12-antigen panel, specificity was 2.2% (95% CI 0-17.7%) and 8.1% (95% CI 0-23.9%), respectively. A three-antigen combination (Rv0934-P38, Ag85A, and Rv2031-HSPX) outperformed both panels, with an AUC of 0.60 (95% CI 0.48-0.73), 90% sensitivity (95% CI 78.2-96.7%) and 29.7% specificity (95% CI 15.9-47%). The multi-antigen panels did not achieve the target accuracy for a TB triage test among PLHIV. We identified a new combination that improved performance for TB screening in an HIV-positive sample compared to an existing serological panel in Uganda, and suggests an approach to identify novel antigen combinations specifically for screening TB in PLHIV.
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.