Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33508221›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2021

Transcriptomic signatures for diagnosing tuberculosis in clinical practice: a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

Long T Hoang, Pooja Jain, Timesh D Pillay, Mica Tolosa-Wright, Umar Niazi, Yemisi Takwoingi, Alice Halliday, Luis C Berrocal-Almanza, Jonathan J Deeks, Peter Beverley and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Monocyte-Amplified Transcriptional Signatures of Human Diseases.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Th9 cells provide protective TB immunity.Frontiers in immunology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Long T HoangTuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Pooja JainTuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Timesh D PillayTuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mica Tolosa-WrightTuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Umar NiaziGuy's and St Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre Translational Bioinformatics Platform, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Yemisi TakwoingiTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; National Institute of Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alice HallidayBristol Children's Vaccine Centre, University of Bristol, UK.
Luis C Berrocal-AlmanzaTuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jonathan J DeeksTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; National Institute of Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Peter BeverleyTuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Onn Min KonTuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; Tuberculosis Service, Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, UK.
Ajit LalvaniTuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: a.lalvani@imperial.ac.uk.
Imperial College London · GBNIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre · GBNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and the ICRUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlood transcriptomic signatures for diagnosis of tuberculosis have shown promise in case-control studies, but none have been prospectively designed or validated in adults presenting with the full clinical spectrum of suspected tuberculosis, including extrapulmonary tuberculosis and common differential diagnoses that clinically resemble tuberculosis. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transcriptomic signatures in patients presenting with clinically suspected tuberculosis in routine practice.

methodsThe Validation of New Technologies for Diagnostic Evaluation of Tuberculosis (VANTDET) study was nested within a prospective, multicentre cohort study in secondary care in England (IDEA 11/H0722/8). Patients (aged ≥16 years) suspected of having tuberculosis in the routine clinical inpatient and outpatient setting were recruited at ten National Health Service hospitals in England for IDEA and were included in VANTDET if they provided consent for genomic analysis. Patients had whole blood taken for microarray analysis to measure abundance of transcripts and were followed up for 6-12 months to determine final diagnoses on the basis of predefined diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic accuracy of six signatures derived from the cohort and three previously published transcriptomic signatures with potentially high diagnostic performance were assessed by calculating area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC-ROCs), sensitivities, and specificities.

findingsBetween Nov 25, 2011, and Dec 31, 2013, 1162 participants were enrolled. 628 participants (aged ≥16 years) were included in the analysis, of whom 212 (34%) had culture-confirmed tuberculosis, 89 (14%) had highly probable tuberculosis, and 327 (52%) had tuberculosis excluded. The novel signature with highest performance for identifying all active tuberculosis gave an AUC-ROC of 0·87 (95% CI 0·81-0·92), sensitivity of 77% (66-87), and specificity of 84% (74-91). The best-performing published signature gave an AUC-ROC of 0·83 (0·80-0·86), sensitivity of 78% (73-83), and specificity of 76% (70-80). For detecting highly probable tuberculosis, the best novel signature yielded results of 0·86 (0·71-0·95), 77% (56-94%), and 77% (57-95%). None of the relevant cohort-derived or previously published signatures achieved the WHO-defined targets of paired sensitivity and specificity for a non-sputum-based diagnostic test.

interpretationIn a clinically representative cohort in routine practice in a low-incidence setting, transcriptomic signatures did not have adequate accuracy for diagnosis of tuberculosis, including in patients with highly probable tuberculosis where the unmet need is greatest. These findings suggest that transcriptomic signatures have little clinical utility for diagnostic assessment of suspected tuberculosis.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMycobacterium tuberculosisProspective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityTranscription FactorsBiomarkersTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID33508221
PMCPMC7907671
OpenAlexW3123090400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.