ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2021
Interferon-γ release assays for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis: a meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for diagnosing tuberculous meningitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Central nervous system tuberculosis in Western Sydney: a 10-year retrospective cohort study.Internal medicine journal · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTuberculous meningitis (TBM) is still a great challenge to global public health. As conventional diagnostic methods for TBM are unsatisfactory, interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) have been introduced for TBM diagnosis tentatively. However, the role of IGRAs for diagnosing TBM remains unclear. Thus, we systematically evaluated the diagnostic performance of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and peripheral blood (PB) IGRAs in TBM to fill this blank. MATERIAL AND
methodsRelevant studies were systematically searched in both foreign and Chinese databases up to March 2018. Studies in which TBM diagnosis was based on microbiological or clinical criteria were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed through the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Main outcome measures, including sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were pooled statistically using random effects models. The potential heterogeneity was explored by threshold effect analysis, subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to test the potential publication bias. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata and Meta-DiSc software.
resultsTwenty-six out of 656 publications were eligible for meta-analysis, including 1892 participants in total. The pooled estimates of PB IGRAs for TBM diagnosis are as follows: sensitivity: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84); specificity: 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73-0.78); PLR: 4.23 (95% CI: 2.95-6.07); NLR: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.19-0.32) and DOR: 21.06 (11.91-37.24). The corresponding estimates for CSF IGRAs were obtained: sensitivity: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.85); specificity: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92); PLR: 7.87 (95% CI: 4.98-12.46); NLR: 0.19 (95% CI: 0.13-0.29); and DOR: 47.74 (25.02-91.12).
conclusionsThe diagnostic performance of IGRAs is suboptimal. In terms of cost, turn-around time and accessibility, these assays are unsuitable for use as biomarkers for TBM diagnosis.
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.