ArticleAccess microbiology2020
IgG response to
Article in Access microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is a major global health concern due to its protean nature. There is a need to identify better biomarkers for the rapid and definitive diagnosis of TBM. Lipids have been poorly explored as diagnostic markers in TBM.
aimNon-polar lipids (NPL) and mycobacterial sonicate extract (MTSE) antigens were assessed for diagnosis of METHODOLOGY: A total of 110 cerebrospinal fluid samples were categorized as confirmed, suspected and non-TBM cases according to clinical presentation and laboratory investigations, which were further analysed by NPL and MTSE ELISA.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the NPL ELISA were 39.6 and 96 %, respectively, whereas the MTSE ELISA was 17 % sensitive and 92 % specific. The combination of the NPL and MTSE ELISA test was superior to these tests alone, with sensitivity and specificity of 43 and 88 %, respectively.
conclusionThis combination may be useful as an adjunct in the laboratory diagnosis of TBM. However, future studies in different settings among different populations, such as those with human immunodeficiency virus co-infection, are desirable to explore the full potential of biomarkers.
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.